^  h. 


f"<f 


€^'^' 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

Case, Piyision r     t... 

Shelf, Section /^_ 

Book, No, 


BV  670  .M39 

Mason,  John  Mi t chel 1 ,  1770 

1820.  ,  ^^ 

Essays  on  episcopacy  and  Tl 


ESSAYS 
EPISCOPACY, 

A.VD  THX 

APOLOGY 

roB 

APOSTOLIC  OKDER  AND  ITS  ADVOCATES, 

REVIEWED. 


BT  THr  LATB 


JOHN    M.     MASON,    D.   D 


BDITKO  BT  TBS  / 

/ 

REV.    EBENEZER    MA80N 


NEW-YORK : 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  EDITOR  BY 

ROBERT    CARTER,    58  CANAL-STREET 

PITTSBURGH :  THOMAS  CARTER, 
1844. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1844,  by 

EBENEZER  MASON, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of 

New- York. 


niw-tork: 

TROW     &     CO.,     FRIItTZnf; 

No.  33  Ann-Street. 


psiaGSi'jj.i 


CONTENTS. 


Editor's  Preface, 

Introduction  to  the  Christian  Magazine, 

REVIEWS. 


PAGE. 
V 

i 


I.    ESSAYS  ON  EPISCOPACY. 

The  Essays  reviewed,  .  .  .  .  .15 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  not  sustained  by  an  exami- 
nation of  Scriptural  titles,  .  .  .37 
The  Jewish  Priesthood,  .  .  .  .66 
The  Church  in  our  Lord's  time,  .  .  .86 
New  Testament  facts,  .  .  .  ,  104 
The  official  character  of  James,  .  .  .  122 
The  Epistles  to  the  seven  churches,  .  .  133 
Official  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  .  .  153 
The  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,       .            .  .208 


II.  HOBART'S  APOLOGY. 


265 


PREFACE. 


The  public  have  recently  been  presented  with  a  reprint 
of  "  An  Apology  for  Apostolic  order  and  its  advocates — in  a 
"series  of  letters  addressed  to  the  Rev.  John  M.  Mason,  D. 
"D.,  by  the  Rev.  John  Henry  Hobart,  an  assistant  minister 
"of  Trinity  Church,"  Had  the  original  title  been  retained, 
it  would  have  obviated  the  necessity  of  stating,  that  this 
"Apology  "  was  "  occasioned  by  the  strictures  and  denunci- 
ations of  the  '  Christian  Magazine.'  "  The  Christian  Maga- 
zine was  a  periodical,  in  which  certain  newspaper  "  Essays 
on  Episcopacy,"  collected  and  published  by  Mr.  Hobart,  in 
a  separate  volume,  were  reviewed.  These  Essays  had  been 
called  forth  by  previous  writings  of  Mr.  Hobart,  and  were 
written  by  one  Presbyterian  and  four  Episcopalians,  of 
which  Mr.  Hobart  was  one,  The  first  number  of  the  Review 
produced  such  floundering  among  the  admirers  of  "Apos- 
tolic order,"  that  forthwith  Mr.  Hobart,  like  a  bold  leader, 
rushed  to  the  rescue;  and  to  cover  his  discomfiture,  and 
rally  his  force,  he  occupied  a  very  considerable  portion  of  his 
Apology,  with  an  attack,  not  upon  the  "Review  of  the 
Essays,"  but  upon  all  the  original  articles  of  the  "  Maga- 
zine" itself;  which  subserved  his  purpose  of  diversion  ;  and 
upon  some  subjects,*  which  had  no  more  to  do  with  the 
question  of  "  Apostolic  order  "  than  a  mitred  Bishop  has  to 
do  with  an  uncovenanted,  unauthorized  non-Episcopally-or- 
dained  preacher  of  the  gospel. 

This  "  Apology"  was  briefly  reviewed  in  the    '  Christian 

*  See  Hobart's  Apology,  especially  Letter  xvi. 


vi  Preface. 

Magazine,"  but  that  '* review"  was  not  republished  in  the 
collection  made  of  Dr.  Mason's  works,  inasmuch  as  it 
was  believed  desirable,  not  to  recall  public  attention  by  a 
specific  reference  to  a  work,  which,  whatever  claims  it  may 
possess  in  the  vindication  of  the  Hierarchy,  possesses  none  for 
self-possession  and  apostolic  dignity.  And  the  grave  had  re- 
cently closed  over  the  authors  of  each.  The  Editor  (Bishop 
Ives)  of  this  second  edition,  appears  to  have  been  somewhat 
sensible  of  this,  and  assigns,  as  an  apology  for  its  republi- 
cation, "  that  the  strictures  and  denunciations  which  called 
"  forth  this  triumphant  defence  of  the  truth,  have  recently 
"  been  given  to  the  public,  in  all  the  '  offensiveness  of  their 
''  original  forms.'  "  This  apology  of  the  editor  needs  one  in- 
gredient to  made  it  valid— Trw^//.  The  Review,  which 
called  out  Mr.  Hobart,  has  not  been  recently  republished — it 
was  republished  twelve  years  since  in  the  collection  of  Dr. 
Mason's  works.  The  volume  recently  published,  was 
''  Essays  upon  the  Church,"  not  the  Episcopal  church — and 
which  at  the  time  of  their  appearance  in  the  Christian  Mag- 
azine, Mr.  Hobart  pronounced  to  be  the  only  original 
article  Dr.  Mason  had  not  penned.  Apology,  p.  8.  It 
seems  accuracy  in  facts,  and  correctness  of  application,  are 
not  necessarily  connected  with  the  lawn  of  the  Bishop. 

The  re-appearance  of  the  Apology  justifies  a  republication 
both  of  the  introduction  to  the  Christian  Magazine,  and  of 
the  brief  review  of  the  Apology  itself  That  review  does  not 
enter  into  any  arguments  upon  the  subject  of  ''  Apostolic 
order,"  as  the  review  of  the  Essays  was  then  in  course  of 
publication,  in  which  the  arguments  contained  in  the 
Apology,  are  necessarily  examined. 

We  may  not  extend  our  remarks  upon  several  points  wor- 
thy of  them  :  the  effect  which  the  Review  of  the  "  Essays 
on  Episcopacy  "  produced  at  the  time  of  its  appearance — the 
almost  entire  suspension  of  the  controversy  for  thirty  years, 
till  a  new  and  different  audience  had  risen  up — the  charac- 
ter of  that  audience — the  reasons  which  have  now  given  this 
subject  a  fresh  importance — the  notion  of  the  numerical  force 


Preface.  vii 

of  Episcopacy.*  But  we  are  restrained.  We  cannot,  how- 
ever, close  without  noticing  the  course  which  the  Episcopal 
controversy  is  taking.  Of  late  years  serious  differences 
have  arisen  among  Episcopalians  themselves ;  and  there  has 
been  exhibited  tendencies,  both  in  doctrine  and  in  govern- 
ment, alarming  to  many  within  its  pale ;  and  a  source  of 
deep  regret  and  solicitude  to  intelligent  and  devoted  Christ- 
ians, loithout  as  well  as  within  its  bounds.  But  more  recent- 
ly, advantage  has  apparently  been  taken  of  incidental  events, 
which  under  other  circumstances  would  have  been  unnoticed, 
(and  the  publication  of  this  Apology  is  an  instance,)  to 
change  the  place  and  character  of  the  contest,  from  with- 
in  to  the  outside  of  the  Church ;  from  a  domestic  contest  to 
di  foreign  contest;  from  a  question  of  Episcopal  assumptions 
over  one  another,  to  a  question  of  the  institution  of  the  Epis- 
copal Hierarchy ; — in  short,  there  is  an  apparent  desire  to  heal 
internal  dissension,  by  raising  the  cry,  "The  Church  is  in 
danger  "  from  the  attacks  of  its  inveterate  opponents  outside 
of  its  pale.  This  is  a  very  common  artifice;  it  may  succeed. 
If  it  does  succeed,  it  will  be  a  sad  success  over  freedom  of 
conscience  and  intelligent  piety ;  it  will  be  a  success  in  riv- 

*  The  arithmetic  of  "  the  Church"  must  be  peculiar,  and  its 
"Apostolic  order"  must  have  a  perception  like  that  which  pertained 
to  Major  Jack  Downing's  glory  spectacles. — They  claim  a  "  greater 
proportion  of  the  Reformed  Church,"  (see  Hob.  Ap.,  p.  100,  note,) 
and  of  the  United  States  too  ?  Is  the  proof  made  up  geographically  ? 
We  have  heard  of  an  incumbent  of  three  parishes,  from  which  he 
drew  near  $'2,.500  per  annum,  without  any  building  in  two  of  them, 
and  if,  in  the  building  of  the  third,  all  the  Episcopal  residents  of  the 
three  parishes  should  have  been  collected  at  the  same  time,  he  would 
have  addressed  an  audience  of  seven  souls  ;  or  is  the  proof  made  out 
numerically  as  they  do  in  the  old  country,  reckon  all  with  the 
Church,  who  from  disinclination,  as  well  as  necessity,  go  to  no 
place  of  worship,  not  even  Episcopal  ;  and  sometimes  their  statistics 
amount  to  a  greater  number  than  the  parish  furnishes  inhabit- 
ants. It  was,  T  suppose,  according  to  the  Church's  arithmetic, 
a  clergyman  in  the  North  of  Ireland  claimed  three  fourths  of  the 
United  States,  as  Unitarians.  But  what  has  numbers  to  do  with  the 
validity  of  the  Episcopal  order  .'     True  enough  I     What .'' 


viii  Preface. 

eting  more  strongly  spiritual  domination,  in  substituting 
modes  and  the  opus  opcratum  for  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ; 
and  in  ultimately  driving  out  from  its  fellowship,  some  who 
from  preference,  choice,  and  even  conviction,  would  rather 
remain  (as  a  salt  indeed)  within  its  communion.  Non-Epis- 
copalians may  not,  nor  need  they,  decline  any  examination 
of  their  position,  either  as  to  principle,  or  as  to  results ;  and 
sure  we  are,  it  is  their  duty  to  give  place,  no  !  not  for  an 
hour,  to  the  dogma  of  unbroken  apostolic  succession  in  the 
Episcopal  Church,  with  all  its  train  of  antiquity  tradition, 
ritual  imposition,  baptismal  regeneration,  sinning  and  un- 
churching arrogance.  We  have  a  more  sure  word  of  pro- 
phecy,  unto  which  we  would  take  heed,  far  better  than  the 
prophecies  of  any  Mitred  Head,  be  it  that  of  my  Lord  Bish- 
op or  of  His  Holiness  the  Pope. 

Ebenezer  Mason. 
New-York,  Jan.  8th,  1844. 


Note. — The  reference,  in  the  Reviews  to  the  "  Apology," 
are  to  the  second  edition  of  that  work  recently  published. 

There  has  been  prepared  a  full  index  to. the  Review  of 
the  Essays,  for  the  convenience  of  reference. 

A  few  sentences  of  the  "  Introduction  to  the  Christian 
Magazine,"  have  been  omitted  for  convenience  in  the  pub- 
lication. A  reference  to  the  Magazine  will  show  them  to  be 
unimportant. 


L\TRODUCTION 


CHRISTIAN     MAGAZINE 


Deference  to  public  opinion,  and  that  frank- 
ness which  is  generally  safe  and  always  honour- 
able, demand  an  explanation  of  the  origin,  de- 
sign, and  nature  of  the  present  work.  This  is 
the  more  expedient,  as  considerations  of  some 
force  appear  hostile  to  the  undertaking.  The 
vanity  of  authorship  might  find  ampler  means 
of  gratification  than  the  fugitive  numbers  of  a 
magazine :  it  is  a  temper  of  no  amiable  cast 
which  delights  in  measuring  the  w^eapons  of 
theological  warfare. 

Many  own  the  gospel  of  salvation  more  from 
custom  than  from  conviction  ;  and,  accordingly, 
pass  their  lives  in  a  dry  and  sterile  profession. 
Many  treat  it  with  indifference  under  the  name 
of  liberality.  Many  corrupt  its  doctrines  ;  fritter 
away  its  sense ;  and  in  exchange  for  the  life- 
blood  of  its  consolation,  offer  to  the  pcrisliing 
soul  a  vain  theory,  or  a  frigid  criticism.  Many, 
1* 


2  Introduction. 

and  that  among  our  youth,  to  show,  in  appear- 
ance, their  bravery  of  spirit,  but  in  reality  to 
shield  their  lusts,  reject  it  altogether  as  unwor- 
thy not  only  of  credence,  but  even  of  inquiry. 
The  mischiefs  arising  from  these  sources  are  in- 
creased by  the  activity  of  a  "  zeal  not  accord- 
ing to  knowledge."  Some,  excluding  the  light 
of  the  understanding,  place  their  religion  in 
fervour  of  feeling.  Some  clamour  incessantly 
for  doctrine;  as  if  the  heart  had  nothing  to  do 
in  the  service  of  God  ;  or  as  if  practical  holi- 
ness were  a  necessary  fruit  of  speculative  ortho- 
doxy. Some,  like  the  self-justifiers  of  old,  "  tithe 
mint  and  anise  and  cummin;"  and  like  them, 
too,  "  omit  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law, 
judgment,  mercy,  and  faith ;"  little  concerned 
about  either  "  receiving  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord," 
or  "  walking  in  him,"  provided  they  be  exact  in 
their  routine  of  ceremonies.  Some,  poisoning 
the  gospel  in  its  fountain  head,  shut  out  the  un- 
converted from  all  interest  in  the  invitations  of 
its  grace;  and,  as  if  the  authority  of  God  were 
to  be  annihilated  with  the  same  blow  which 
fells  the  hope  of  the  sinner,  do,  with  their  might, 
what  Paul  declared  he  and  his  fellow  Apostles 
did  not — "make  void  the  law  throuj'h  faith." 
Some  appear  to  lay  as  much  stress  upon  their 
external  order,  as  if  the  key  which  opens  the 
door  of  their  comnumion,  opened,  at  the  same 
moment,  the  doors  of  Paradise;  altliough,  upon 
that  supposition,  it  is  evident  that  the   "gate" 


Introduction.  3 

and  '*  way"  which  "  lead  unto  life"  are  no  long- 
er "  straight  and  narrow."  Some,  in  the  oppo- 
site extreme,  account  the  external  order  of  the 
house  of  God  a  matter  of  no  importance ;  and 
are  chargeahle,  for  this  their  negligence,  wuth 
countenancing,  at  least  indirectly,  violation  of 
their  Lord's  commandment,  invasion  of  his  pre- 
rogative, and  assault  upon  his  truth.  And  as 
though  all  this  were  not  enough,  there  are  not 
wanting  others  to  lay  their  axe  at  the  root  of 
entire  Christianitv,  bv  endeavouring  to  set  aside 
the  distinctive  character,  and  the  authentic  call 
of  the  gospel  ministry.  Addressing  themselves 
to  the  avarice  of  one  class,  to  the  conceit  of  an- 
other, to  the  credulity  of  a  third,  and  to  the  ig- 
norance of  all,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  they 
should  draw  many  after  "  their  pernicious 
w^ays."  Their  proscribing  from  the  ministry 
all  learning,  taste,  and  talents,  through  an  avow- 
ed jealousy  for  the  glory  of  divine  teaching,  may 
impose  for  a  while  upon  a  guileless  Christian, 
who  suspects  no  harm  when  the  grace  of  God  is 
extolled;  but  it  will  be  well  if  the  mask  shall 
be  found  to  have  concealed  the  tendency  of  their 
principles  from  their  own  view. 

Whether  this  representation  be  just  or  not,  is 
known  to  every  one  who  has  the  faculty  of  ob- 
servation, and  the  will  to  use  it.  And  whether 
or  not  such  a  state  of  things,  conspiriiig  w^ith 
tlie  intemperate  pursuit  of  wealth,  with  the  gra- 
dual relaxation  of  every  social  bond  ;  with  the 


4  Introduction. 

violence  of  political  ferment;  and  with  the  ap- 
proach of  those  fearful  days  which  are  coming 
upon  the  earth,  can  fail  to  grieve  the  serious,  to 
ensnare  the  unwary,  to  stumble  the  thoughtful, 
to  multiply  the  profane,  and  to  spread  ''  confu- 
sion  and  every  evil  w^ork,"  will  admit  of  but 
one  answer.    What,  then,  is  to  be  done?    Shall 
w^e  slumber  on  till  the  midnight  cry  awake  us, 
and  the  season  of  action  be  over  ?     Shall  we, 
because  prospects  are  bad,  give  up  all  for  lost ; 
and   sit  down    desponding,  till    the  deluge  of 
abominations  sweep  us  aw^ay  7    God  forbid  !    It 
is  the  dictate  of  both  reason  and  revelation,  to 
^^ redeem  the  time  because  the  days  are  evil." 
No  man  can  tell  what  an  extent  of  ruin  the 
efforts  of  those,  or  a  considerable  number  of 
those,  who  love  ''  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus," 
commencing  at  this  hour,  may  avert  from  their 
families,  from  their  country,  and  from  the  church 
of  God.     One  of  the   most  obvious  means  of 
success  is  the  calling  their  attention  to  those 
subjects  of  faith  and  practice  which  derive  a 
new  interest  from  tlie  "  signs  of  the  times."   The 
precious  truths  of  the  gospel  must  be  maintain- 
ed, vindicated,  urged  upon  their  consciences — 
They  must  be  stimulated  where  they  are  slack, 
and  instructed  where  they  are  ignorant — They 
must  be  taught  to  contemplate  in  a  juster  light 
than  has  been  common,  the  nature,  and  value, 
of  the  Redeemer's  institutions — They  must  be 
put  on   their  guard   against  the  many  '^  Anti- 


Introduction.  5 

christs"  which,  in  various  shapes,  are  "  abroad 
in  the  world  " — They  must  be  cautioned  against 
those  /'  swelling  words  of  vanity,"   and  those 
"  fair  speeches"  of  craft,  by  which  they  are  in 
danger  of  being  misled — They  must  learn  to 
explore  the  foundations  not  only  of  that  saving 
truth,  but  of  that  comely  order,  and  those  costly 
privileges,  which  were  "  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,"  and  have  been  consecrated  by  the  blood 
of  martyrs — to  ''  walk  about  Zion,  and  go  round 
about  her;  to  tell  the  towers  thereof;  to  mark 
well  her  bulwarks,  and  consider  her  palaces, 
that  they  may  tell  it  to  the  generation  follow- 
ing'^ — They  must  be  able,  with  meekness  and 
dignity,  both  to  ''give  a  reason  of  the  hope  that 
is  in  themselves,"  and  of  their  opposition  to  the 
errors  of  others — They  must  be  led  to  a  better 
knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scripture  than  can  be 
acquired  from  the  repetition  of  elementary  prin- 
ciple, however  ''  beautiful  in  its  season,"  or  es- 
sential in  its  place — They  must  be  persuaded 
to  seek   after  those  ministrations  which  shall 
"  i'eed  them  with  knowledge   and  with  under- 
standing ;"  and  to  exert  themselves,  in  the  ap- 
plication of  suitable  means  for  procuring  to  the 
ministry  a  succession  of  "  able"   and   "  faithful 
men,"  who  ''  need  not  to  be  ashamed,  rightly 
dividing  the  word  of  truth" — They  must  look  at 
Christianity,  not  merely  as  it  lies  in  the  pages 
of  their  Bibles,  and  their  confessions  of  faith  ; 
but  also  as  it  has  been  embodied  in  the  holy 


6  Introduction. 

characters,  the  active  lives,  and  the  peaceful 
death  of  their  brethren  who  are  gone  to  the  ''  re- 
compense of  reward,"  and  whose  "  faith*  it  is 
their  duty  and  happiness  to  "  follow."     Their 
solicitude  is  also  to  be  excited  toward   their 
children.     Perhaps  there  is  no  obligation  dis- 
regarded with  less  remorse,  or  more  fatal  effects, 
than  that  of  bringing  up  youth  in  the  "  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the   Lord."     Christian  fami- 
lies are  as  certainly  the  nurseries  of  the  church 
upon  earth,  as  she  is  herself  the  nursery  of  the 
church  in  heaven.     Nor  is  there  a  more  alarm- 
ing symptom  of  her  condition  than  the  few,  the 
very  few,  who  tread  in  the  steps  of  their  reli- 
gious parents.    Old  Christians  are  dying  off,  and 
a  proportionable  number  of  young  ones  does  not 
step  forward  to  occupy  their  stations.     Wo  to 
that  generation  by  which  the  testimony  of  God 
shall  be  abandoned  !     But  wo  also  to  that  gen- 
eration  which  is  preparing  the  "  seed  of  evil 
doers"  that  shall  perform  the  accursed  work  !*^ 
They  who  now  fill  the  Christian  church  ought 
to  tremble  lest  at  their  doors  be  laid  the  guilt  of 
rearing  an  infidel  progeny ;  and  at   their  hands 
be  required  the  blood  of  sons  and  daughters  to 
be  born  in  ages  to  come.    If  any  thing  vigorous 
is  to  be  expected  in  remedying  the  evil,  Chris- 
tians must  pause.     They  must  ask  whether  or 
not  they  do  right  in  courting  for  their  offspring 
that '' friendship  of  the  world"  which  is  ''en- 
mity with  God  :"  whether  they  can  now  excuse 


Introduction.  7 

themselves  to  their  consciences,  or  will  here- 
after stand  blameless  before  their  judge,  for 
their  unfaithfulness  to  the  children  ''whom  he 
hath  given  them;"  for  their  connivance  at  those 
profligate  habits  which  are  carrying  pestilence 
into  the  bosom  of  domestic  society ;  for  the  piti- 
able and  criminal  vanity  of  qualifying  their  boys 
and  their  girls  for  entering  with  eclat  into  that 
very  world  from  which  the  voice  of  their  God 
has  enjoined  them  and  theirs  to  ''come  out  and 
be  separate,"  if  they  hope  to  be  acknowledged 
by  Him  as  His  "  sons  and  His  daughters." 

All  these  are  things  of  unutterable  moment. 
They  must  be  pondered  with  solemn  regard. 
They  must  so  mingle  themselves  wath  convic- 
tion and  feeling,  and  conduct,  as  to  change,  in  a 
great  measure,  the  face  of  the  visible  church; 
or  there  is  nothing  before  us  but  that  desolation 
which  will  come  "like  a  whirlwind,"  and  will 
carry  aw  ay  in  its  course  every  individual  and 
denomination  that  shall  be  unprepared  for  the 
shock.  Let  no  man  deceive  himself,  nor  those 
who  listen  to  Iiim,  with  vain  words.  Let  him 
not  smile  at  these  forebodings  as  childish,  nor 
contemn  them  as  fanatical.  Let  him,  at  least, 
before  he  venture  upon  such  security,  hold  up 
the  light  of  revelation  to  tlie  objects  which  sur- 
round him,  and  he  will  perceive  that  the  alarm 
is  not  without  cause.  Unbelief  in  suggestions 
founded  upon  the  word  of  God,  and  enforced  by 
his  providence,  is  an  ancient  folly;  "  when  they 


8  Introduction. 

say  peace  and  safety,  then  sudden  destruction 
Cometh."  To  ward  off,  or  lighten  the  impend- 
ing stroke,  every  minister  of  reconciliation 
should  be  alert  at  his  post;  every  Christian  pa- 
rent should  redouble  his  diligence  in  training  up 
his  children  ;  every  man  of  talents  should  con- 
secrate his  power;  every  man  of  wealth  be  for- 
w-ard  in  offering  his  substance ;  every  man  of 
devotion  wrestle  before  the  throne  of  God. 

To  throw  something  into  the  common  scale 
is  the  design  of  the  Clwhtian^s  Magazine.  To 
require  in  its  numbers  an  exemplification  of  all 
that  energy  and  those  excellencies  which  have 
just  been  pronounced  indispensable  to  the 
Christian  weal,  would  be  unreasonable ;  as  it 
would  demand  from  a  few  individuals  what  can- 
not be  accomplished  but  by  the  conjoined  piety 
and  labour  of  thousands.  This  work  will  fulfil 
its  task  by  erecting  a  standard  round  which  the 
friends  of  truth  may  rally — by  discussing  topics 
w^hich  may  prompt  the  spirit  of  research — by 
diffusing  religious  information  ;  and  by  firm  re- 
sistance to  attempts  from  the  press  to  pervert 
scriptural  principle,  or  undermine  the  scriptural 
institutions. 

In  order,  however,  to  avoid  unmerited  blame, 
and  to  preclude  misconception  with  regard  to 
some  material  articles,  the  following  observa- 
tions may  not  be  impertinent. 

1.  The  Prospectus  specifies  merely  the  sub- 
jects which  are  to  be  handled;  but  nothing  as 


Introduction.  9 

to  their  order  or  proportion.  The  quantity  of 
religious  intelligence,  in  particular,  must  greatly 
vary :  not  only  because  events  do  not  happen 
at  regular  intervals,  but  because  it  is  often  hard 
to  ascertain  the  truth.  The  Editor  does  not 
dissemble  his  fears  that  he  shall  frequently  be 
unable  to  gratify,  on  this  point,  the  laudable  cu- 
riosity of  his  readers ;  and  he  can  tender  them 
no  equivalent  for  occasional  disappointment,  but 
his  care  not  to  amuse  them  with  fiction  instead 
of  fact. 

2.  The  Magazine  will  support  that  Ecclesi- 
astical government  which  combines  the  visible 
unity  of  the  Churck  Catholic  with  perfect  equal- 
ity of  rank  among  her  ministers ;  and  the  chief 
of  those  tenets  which  are  known  as  the  doctrines 
of  the  reformation.  The  attacks  now  made  in 
various  directions  upon  the  former,  and  the 
odium  so  industriously  heaped  upon  the  latter, 
have  no  influence  in  shaking  the  editor's  attach- 
ment to  either  ;  nor  in  deterring  him  from  vin- 
dicating both  before  the  face  of  the  sun.  Deep- 
ly convinced  that  in  this  system  of  government, 
and  these  doctrines  of  faith,  are  contained  the 
law  of  God's  house,  and  the  '^  wells  of  salva- 
tion," he  cannot  admit  into  the  Magazine,  any 
thing  repugnant  to  them.  That  pruriency  of 
debate,  w  hich  sets  up  falsehood  for  the  pleasure 
of  knocking  it  down,  is  a  compound,  in  nearly 
equal  parts,  of  vanity  and  weakness.  It  would 
be  quite  as  wise  and  commendable  in  a  physi- 


10  Introduction. 

cian  to  poison  liis  patient  that  he  might  try  the 
force  of  Iiis  antidote.  The  antidote  might  be 
good,  and  upon  the  whole  successful;  hut  if  by 
any  accident,  a  life  should  be  sacrificed  to  his 
experiments,  the  fame  of  his  skill  would  be  a 
costly  purchase.  There  are  enough  to  propa- 
gate falsehood  without  the  aid  of  those  w^ho 
should  destroy  it.  The  duty  of  Christians  is  to 
confront  and  repel,  not  abet  the  enemy,  nor  ad- 
mit him  into  their  camp  in  order  to  subdue  him. 
According  to  its  resources,  the  Christian's  Mag- 
azine will  not  be  backward  in  strengthening 
their  hands  and  stirring  up  their  zeal  in  this 
contest.  It  can  never  descend  to  altercation ; 
yet  if  it  should,  on  any  occasion,  be  so  unfortu- 
nate as  to  misrepresent  persons  or  things,  a  cor- 
rection of  the  mistake,  when  demonstrated  to 
the  editor,  will  be  thankfully  received  and  cheer- 
fully inserted.  It  also  engages  that  while  it  will 
maintain  and  expose  error  without  reserve  or 
scruple,  no  abuse  nor  virulence  shall  pollute  its 
pages. 

3.  In  reviewing  books,  considerable  latitude 
must  be  allowed. 

This  part  of  the  work  is  arduous,  as  it  de- 
mands more  than  ordinary  self-denial,  and  can- 
not be  executed  without  sometimes  risking  the 
displeasure  even  of  those  whom  we  have  neither 
interest  nor  inclination  to  offend.  Authors,  in 
general,  are  not  the  most  patient  or  least  irri- 
table of  beings.     Even  good  men  are  apt  to  be 


Introduction.  11 

intractable  when  they  array  themselves  in 
print,  and  to  be  nearly  as  much  disconcerted  by 
a  critical  rebuke,  as  if  they  had  been  libelled  for 
a  crime.  But  there  is  no  help  for  it.  Justice 
must  be  distributed  without  "  fear,  favour,  or 
affection."  There  is  no  other  way  of  informing 
the  reader  or  improving  the  writer.  It  is,  in- 
deed, common  for  reviewers  to  profess  impar- 
tiality. And  if  by  impartiality  be  meant,  giving 
to  every  writer  his  due,  according  to  one's  best 
judgment,  the  Christian's  Magazine  claims  to 
be  impartial.  But  if  impartiality  consist  in 
strictures  on  an  author's  style  and  manner,  and 
a  fair  statement  of  his  opinions  without  deciding 
on  their  quality^  then  it  solemnly  disclaims  all 
such  impartiality.  The  very  use  of  a  religious 
Review  is  to  distinguish  the  "  precious"  from 
the  "  vile."  Is  it  in  religion  only  that  we  may 
prevaricate  ?  In  the  most  tremendous  of  all 
concerns  that  we  are  to  be  undecided  ?  Are 
we  to  punish  every  transgression  of  literarv 
law ;  and  to  let  slander  upon  the  gospel,  and 
assassination  of  the  souls  of  men,  pass  without 
reproof,  lest  we  should  be  branded  as  unchar- 
itable ?  The  good  Lord  deliver  us  from  such 
charity.  It  has  always  appeared  to  the  editor, 
how  plausible  soever  the  appellations  be- 
stowed upon  it,  to  be  treason  against  the  high- 
est allegiance,  and  to  mark  the  union  of  cow- 
ardice and  fraud.  If,  therefore,  any  one  shall 
hope  to  see  in  this  Review  no  discrimination  of 


12  Introduction. 

religious  doctrines;  no  preference  shown  to 
those  which  guide  to  the  "  path  of  life,"  over 
those  which  lead  to  "  bottomless  perdition,"  he 
will  be  much  disappointed.  Whatever  may  be 
its  other  imperfections,  no  man  shall  accuse  it 
of  trimming  on  the  points  of  faith  and  duty. 

4.  As  the  object  of  the  Magazine  cannot  be 
attained  without  the  editor's  control  over  its 
materials,  he  will  feel  himself  not  only  at  lib- 
erty, but  under  obligation,  to  make  such  altera- 
tions in  the  pieces  which  may  be  offered  for  in- 
sertion, as  he  shall  judge  expedient.  His  lite- 
rary friends  will  be  considered  as  acceding  to 
this  condition  in  all  their  communications  which 
shall  not  be  accompanied  with  a  contrary  re- 
quest. When  such  cases  shall  occur,  and  the 
pieces  be  thought  exceptionable,  they  will  of 
course  be  suppressed,  and  remain  subject  to  the 
disposal  of  their  authors. 


REVIEW 


ESSAYS    ON    EPISCOPACY 


REVIEW. 


A  Collection  of  Essays  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy ^ 
which  originally  appeared  in  the  Albany  Centinel^ 
and  which  are  principally  ascribed  to  the  Rev,  Dr. 
Linn^  the  Rev.  Mr,  Beasley^  and  Thomas  Y.  How^ 
Esq,  With  additional  notes  and  remarks,  8vo.  p.  p. 
210.  New-York,  T.  k  J.  Swords,  1806. 


Early  in  the  summer  of  1804,  the  Rev.  John 
Henry  Hobart,  an  assistant  minister  of  Trinity 
Church,  New-York,  pubhshed  a  work,  entitled, 
"  A  Companion  for  the  Altar :  consisting  of  a  short 
explanation  of  the  Lord^s  Supper  ;  and  meditations  and 
prayers^  proper  to  be  used  before^  and  during  the  receiv- 
ing of  the  Holy  Communion^  according  to  the  form 
prescribed  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churchy  in  the 
United  States  of  America.'^''  This  was  followed,  in 
the  fall  of  the  same  year,  by  another  compilation, 
from  the  pen  of  the  same  gentleman,  entitled,  «  A 
Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.'''^ 


16  Review, 

These  volumes,  especially  the  former,  appear- 
ed, at  the  time  of  their  publication,  not  only  to  the 
non-episcopal  reader,  but,  if  we  are  correctly  in- 
formed, to  discreet  Episcopalians  themselves,  to 
advance  claims  which  it  is  extremely  difficult  to 
substantiate. 

Of  the  nature  of  these  claims,  the  following  ex- 
tract from  the  Companion  for  the  Altar ^  will  give 
a  general  idea. 

"  The  Judge  of  the  whole  earth  indeed  will  do 
right.  The  grace  of  God  quickens  and  animates 
all  the  degenerate  children  of  Adam.  The  mercy 
of  the  Saviour  is  co-extensive  with  the  ruin  into 
which  sin  has  plunged  mankind.  And  '  in  every 
nation,  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  right- 
eousness is  accepted  of  him.'  But  where  the  Gos- 
pel is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the  church  by 
the  participationof  its  ordinances,  at  the  hands  of 
the  duly  authorized  priesthood,  is  the  indispensa- 
ble condition  of  salvation.  Separation  from  the 
prescribed  government  and  regular  pristhood  of 
the  church,  when  it  proceeds  from  involuntary  and 
unavoidable  ignorance  or  error^  we  have  reason  to 
trust,  will  not  intercept  from  the  humble,  the  peni- 
tent, and  obedient,  the  blessings  of  God's  favour. 
But  when  we  humbly  submit  to  that  priesthood 
which  Christ  and  his  apostles  constituted  ;  when, 
in  the  lively  exercise  of  penitence  and  faith,  we 
partake  of  the  ordinances  administered  by  them, 
we   maintain  our  communion  with  that  church 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  17 

which  the  Redeemer  purifies  by  his  blood,  which 
he  quickens  by  his  Spirit,  and  whose  faithful  mem- 
bers he  will  finally  crown  with  the  most  exalted 
glories  of  his  heavenly  kingdom.  The  important 
truth  which  the  universal  church  has  uniformly 
maintained,  that,  to  experience  the  full  and  exalt- 
ed efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  we  must  receive 
them  from  a  valid  authority,  is  not  inconsistent 
with  that  charity  which  extends  mercy  to  all  who 
labour  under  involuntary  error.  But  great  is  the 
guilt,  and  imminent  the  danger,  of  those  who,  pos- 
sessing the  means  of  arriving  at  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth,  negligently  or  ivilfully  continue  in  a  state 
of  separation  from  the  authorized  ministry  of  the 
church,  and  participate  of  ordinances  administer- 
ed by  an  irregular  and  invalid  authority.  Wilful- 
ly rending  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church,  by 
separating  from  the  ministrations  of  its  authorized 
priesthood;  obstinately  contemning  the  means 
which  God  in  his  sovereign  pleasure,  hath  pre- 
scribed for  their  salvation,  they  are  guilty  of  re- 
bellion against  their  Almighty  Law-giver,  and 
Judge;  they  expose  themselves  to  the  awful  dis- 
pleasure of  that  Almighty  Jehovah,  who  will  not 
permit  his  institutions  to  be  condemned,  or  his 
authority  violated,  with  impunity."  This  from 
the  '•  Meditation"  for  "  Saturday  evening."  p. 
202—204. 

As  we  have  quoted  the  passage,  rather  in  order 

to  connect  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to 
Vol.  Ill,  3 


1 8  Review 

the  "  collection"  immediately  under  review,  than 
to  subject  it  to  rigid  criticism ;  we  forbear  com- 
menting on  several  assertions,  in  maintaining 
which  the  reverend  writer,  if  a  little  pressed,  might 
perhaps  find  that  he  has  no  ingenuity  to  spare. 
We  now  consider  it  in  reference  to  the  subject  of 
the  "  Essays." 

Extravagant  as  such  pretensions  must  seem  to 
those  whose  convictions  are  of  a  different  sort, 
and  offensive  as  they  were  to  individuals  whose 
predilections  are  certainly  not  anti-episcopal,  no 
notice,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  taken  of  Mr. 
Hobart's  productions,  nor  any  thing  published  on 
the  other  side,  till  the  summer  of  1805.  Then  a 
writer,  generally  supposed  to  be  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Linn,  introduced  into  "the  Albany  Centinel,"  un- 
der the  head  of  "Miscellanies,  No.  ix."  some  free 
strictures  on  the  Episcopal  claims.  He  imme- 
diately met  with  an  antagonist  of  no  mean  pow- 
ers, under  the  signature  of  a  Layman  of  the  Epis- 
copal  Churchy  who  is  understood  to  be  Thomas  Y. 
How,  Esq,  To  the  aid  of  the  latter  came  the 
Rev.  Frederick  Beasley,  Rector  of  St.  Peter's 
Church,  Albany,  with  the  venerable  name  of  Cy- 
prian, Clemens^  or  Dr.  L.  himself,  shortly  appear- 
ed in  favour  of  the  Miscellanist ;  as  the  battle 
waxed  sore,  the  band  of  the  hierarchy  was  joined 
by  two  right  reverend  prelates,  the  one  from  this 
state,  as  Cornelius  ;  the  other  from  Pennsylvania, 
as  an  Episcopalian  ;  together  with  Mr.  (now  Dr.) 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  It 

HoBART  himself,  in  the  twofold  form  of  Detector 
and  Vindex  ;  while  the  Miscellanist  re-appeared  in 
the  characters  of  Umpire  and  an  Inquirer.  By  the 
forces  thus  marshalled,  five  against  one,  the  war- 
fare was  protracted  till  the  public  grew  w^eary, 
and  the  printer  interposed  to  effect  an  armistice. 
However,  that  the  record  and  the  fruits  of  so  me- 
morable a  campaign  might  not  be  lost,  the  Rev 
Mr.  HoBART  did  not  think  it  a  misapplication  of 
his  time,  nor  a  disservice  to  his  church,  to  gather 
the  pieces  of  both  parties,  and  repubhsh  them  in 
a  separate  volume  with  a  preface,  annotations, 
and  comments  of  his  own.  We,  accordingly, 
take  up  the  "  collection"  as  it  came  from  his 
hands. 

We  have  heard  a  suggestion  of  unfairness  in 
this  transaction.  We  do  not  see  how  the  charge 
can  be  supported,  unless  the  writers  on  the  Epis- 
copal side  have  been  permitted  to  alter  and  amend 
their  essays  without  extending  the  same  privilege 
to  their  opponents.  The  modification  of  a  single 
paragraph  may  cover  with  ridicule  the  most  for- 
cible argument  which  was  directed  against  it 
before  the  modification,  and  v/ould  insult  the  reader 
by  imposing  upon  him  something  which  was  not 
the  subject  of  remark.  Of  so  degrading  an 
artifice  no  reputable  man  ought  to  be  lightly  sus- 
pected. As  we  have  no  such  suspicion,  and  as 
this  alone  could  justify  a  charge  of  unfairness,  we 
do  not  see  that  Mr.  H.  is  at  all  reprehensible  for 


20  Review. 

republishing  a  set  of  essays  which  had  been  thrown 
upon  the  world  without  any  pecuniary  restriction, 
and  accompanying  them  with  such  criticism  as 
he  deemed  just. 

Mr.  H.  observes  in  his  preface,  that  "  the  friends 
of  the  church  and  of  Episcopacy,  however  reluct- 
ant to  discuss  an  important  rehgious  topic  in  a 
public  paper,  were  compelled  to  resort  to  the 
same  mode,  for  defence,  which  the  author  ot 
Miscellanies  had  chosen  for  his  attack."  We  la 
ment,  as  sincerely  as  themselves,  that  a  Newspa- 
per was  selected  for  such  a  discussion.  We  la- 
mented it  from  the  first.  We  never  flattered  our- 
selves that  it  would  operate  with  a  favourable 
influence  either  on  the  cause  of  truth,  or  on  the 
social  feeling  of  the  community. 

But  when  Mr.  H.  and  the  Layman^  and  Cyprian^ 
all  complain  of  being  assaulted  in  the  peaceful 
exercise  of  a  common  right,  and  thus  endeavour 
to  throw  the  odium  of  aggression  upon  the  author 
of  "Miscellanies,"  it  is  rather  over-acting.  To 
exclude  all  non-episcopalians  from  "  the  church 
which  the  Redeemer  purifies  by  his  blood,  and 
quickens  by  his  Spirit," — to  pronounce  all  their 
ministrations  "  irregular  and  invalid," — to  charge 
them  with  "  great  guilt"  and  threaten  them  with 
"  imminent  danger,"  for  "  neghgently  or  wilfully 
continuing  in  a  state  of  separation"  from  the 
episcopal  church — to  represent  them  as  "  wilfully 
rending  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church ;  as 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  21 

obstinately  contemning  the  means  which  God 
hath  appointed  for  their  salvation ;"  as  "  guilty  of 
rebellion  against  their  Almighty  Law-giver,  and 
Judge," — to  publish  all  this  to  the  world ;  and 
then  most  gravely  to  tell  these  same  non-episco- 
palians, that  there  is  no  attack  upon  them ;  but 
only  a  httle  wholesome  admonition  for  the  edifi- 
cation of  devout  episcopahans  on  the  evening  be- 
fore the  Holy  Communion  !  and,  moreover,  to  put 
on  a  lofty  air,  and  break  out  into  angry  rebuke, 
toward  those  who  are  not  satisfied  with  their  ex- 
planation, is  really  an  improvement  in  polemical 
finesse.  But  hold !  let  us  look  again  at  these 
pretty  figures  of  rhetoric,  by  which  thunderbolts, 
hurled  at  the  heads  of  opponents,  are  converted 
into  the  gentle  dews  of  instruction  and  consola- 
tion to  friends — Schismatics,  usurpers,  renders  of 
the  church's  unity,  rebels  against  their  Almighty 
Law-giver  ! — Verily,  if  this  is  no  attack  upon  non- 
episcopalians,  it  is  so  like  one,  that  we  need  a 
shrewd  interpreter  at  our  elbow,  to  prevent  our 
mistaking  it.  "  I  never,"  said  Jack,  of  Lord  Pe- 
ter's brown  bread,  "  saw  a  piece  of  mutton  in  my 
life,  so  nearly  resembling  a  slice  from  a  twelve- 
penny  loaf  1 !" 

If  Mr.  H.  had  intended  an  attack  upon  the  an- 
ti-episcopal denominations,  in  what  manner  could 
he  have  made  it  ?  Not  by  assailing  them  individ- 
ually in  the  street :  not  by  entering  their  houses 
and  reading  them  a  lecture  on  schism :  not  even 


22  Review. 

by  preaching  against  them  in  his  own  place  of 
Avorship :  for  this  would  be  "  instructing  his  own 
people ;"  and  if  any  others  should  happen  to  stroll 
in,  he  could  not  help  that,  more  than  he  could 
hinder  their  buying  and  reading  his  books ;  which, 
according  his  own  account,  he  neither  desired 
nor  expected.  It  is  the  dictate  of  common  sense 
that  if  an  author  print  and  publish  severe  reflec- 
tions upon  any  body  of  men,  he  not  only  attacks 
them,  but  does  it  in  the  most  open  manner  possi- 
ble. If  one  of  our  citizens  should  write  and  ad- 
vertise in  the  Gazettes,  a  pamphlet,  calling  all  the 
members  of  the  community,  but  those  of  his  own 
sect,  traitors  and  rebels  to  the  government,  would 
Mr.  H.  or  any  body  else,  comprehended  in  the 
charge,  be  satisfied  with  such  an  apology  as  this : 
u  You,  have  no  right,  sir,  to  be  offended  with  any 
part  of  my  pamphlet.  It  is  true,  I  have  called  you 
a  rebel  and  a  traitor,  but  you  should  not  construe 
these  epithets  into  an  attack  upon  you ;  for  the 
least  candour  will  enable  you  to  perceive  that  I 
published  my  pamphlet  for  the  exclusive  use  of 
my  own  connexions  ?"  Would  this,  we  ask,  con- 
vince Mr.  H.  or  any  one  else,  and  send  him  home 
perfectly  satisfied  to  be  denounced,  as  a  rebel 
and  a  traitor,  so  often  as  a  zealous  partisan  might 
judge  it  conducive  to  the  edification  of  his  own 
particular  friends?  We  believe  not.  Neither 
will  the  non-episcopalians  be  satisfied  with  Mr. 
H's.  apology  for  himself      They  will  probably 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  23 

view  it  as  a  stratagem,  and  not  a  very  deep  one, 
to  avoid  the  unpopularity  of  appearing  as  the  ag- 
gressor. Some  of  tiiem,  too,  may  consider  Mr. 
H's.  books  as  the  continuance  of  a  system  of  at- 
tack which  commenced  several  years  ago,  when 
a  certain  preacher  declared  to  the  faces  of  some 
of  the  most  venerable  ministers  in  this  city,  that 
all  clergymen  not  episcopally  ordained,  are  im- 
postors ;  their  commissions,  forgeries  ;  and  their 
sacraments,  blasphemy.* 

These  aspersions  raised  a  great  clamour  at  the 
time ;  and  the  repetition  of  them  by  Mr.  H.  and 

*  The  preacher  was  Mr.  Wright  ;  the  place,  St.  Paul's  church  ; 
the  occasion,  a  deacon's  ordination ;  and  the  text,  of  which,  to 
use  his  own  words,  he  "  took  leave,"  in  order  to  give  the  poor 
non-episcopalians  a  hit,  that  injunction  of  our  Lord,  '■'■Be  ye  wise 
as  serpents,  and  harmless  as  doves.^'  That  the  orator  was  right  in 
taking  this  "  leave,"  will  hardly  be  questioned,  as  he  immediately 
broke  through  the  second  precept  of  his  text ;  and  the  consequences 
proved  that  he  had  but  little  skill  in  the  first.  The  effusion  had 
more  of  every  thing  in  the  serpent,  than  his  wisdom  ;  and  more 
of  every  thing  in  the  dove,  than  her  innocence. 

A  circumstance  which  rendered  the  attack  an  outrage,  was  the 
care  of  the  episcopal  clergy  to  circulate  notice  of  the  ordination, 
and  their  solicitude  for  the  attendance  of  their  non-episcopal 
brethren!  One  of  the  latter,  who  was  present,  remarked,  at  the 
close  of  the  service,  with  the  pith  and  point  of  indignant  feeling, 
that  "Mr.  W.  possessed  a  large  stock  of  confidence,  to  tell  his 
bishop  to  his  face,  that  he  was  an  unregenerated  man,  and  no 
member  of  the  Christian  church !"  It  being  well  known  that  the 
Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Samuel,  bishop  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  New-York,  had  been  baptized 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dubois,  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church.     Therefore,— &c.     Alas  !  Alas  ! 


24  R 


eview. 


others,  though  in  more  decent  language,  has  been 
loudly  censured,  as  a  violation  of  all  the  rules  of 
prudence  and  charity.  Of  their  prudence  we  say 
nothing.  And  the  offence  against  charity  is  not 
the  point  of  difficulty  with  us.  Nor  do  we  think 
that  the  author  of  "  Miscellanies,"  in  declaiming 
against  episcopal  "  bigotry  and  superstition,"  has 
taken  the  question  by  the  proper  handle.  These 
are,  at  best,  ungracious  compliments,  which, 
though  they  may  vent  the  ire  of  the  writer,  contri- 
bute little  to  the  emolument  of  the  reader;  and 
are  generally  repaid  with  good  will,  and  with  large 
interest.  Truth,  can  admit  of  no  compromise 
with  error,  nor  does  charity  require  it.  They  are 
the  truly  charitable  v/ho  point  out  the  way  of  life, 
and  warn  their  fellow  men  of  dangerous  mistake. 
Therefore  w^e  shall  neither  dispute  the  right  of  an 
Episcopalian  to  publish  his  peculiar  sentiments, 
nor  when  they  happen  to  bear  hard  upon  others, 
shall  we  cry  out  against  their  uncharitableness. 
Oar  concern  is  with  their  truth  or  falsehood. 
And  as  we  are  far  from  impeaching  the  sincerity 
of  Mr.  H.  and  his  coadjutors,  whatever  we  may 
think  of  their  discretion ;  so  our  criticisms  are 
intended  to  apply  to  them  solely  as  authors.  For 
their  personal  characters,  we  entertain  unfeigned 
respect.  Nor  can  we  be  justly  charged  with  vio- 
lating that  respect,  though  we  examine  their  claim 
with  as  little  ceremony  as  they  have  brought  it 
forward.  If  the  errour  be  ours,  let  them  overwhelm 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  25 

our  darkness  with  the  effulgence  of  their  hght — if 
the  error  be  theirs,  God  forbid  that  any  human 
regards  should  prevail  with  us  to  pass  it  gently 
by.  With  the  imperial  Stoick,  we  "  aim  at  truths 
by  which  no  man  was  ever  injured."^ 

They  tell  us  then,  that  their  "  priesthood"  is 
the  only  "  authorized  ministry" — that  the  church 
in  which  it  officiates,  is  the  only  one  in  covenant 
with  God — that  where  the  gospel  is  proclaimed, 
communion  with  this  church,  by  the  participation 
of  its  ordinances  at  the  hands  of  the  duly  autho- 
rized priesthood,  is  the  indispensable  condition  ol 
salvation — that  whatever  mercy  may  be  extended 
to  those  who  labour  under  involuntary  errour,  such 
as  negligently  or  wilfully  continue  in  a  state  of  se- 
paration from  the  authorized  ministry  of  the 
church,  and  participate  of  ordinances  administer- 
ed by  an  irregular  and  invalid  authority,  are  guilty 
not  only  of  schism,  but  of  contempt  of  God's  in- 
stitutions ;  of  rebellion  against  his  government, 
and  of  exposing  themselves  to  his  awful  displea- 
sure. In  fewer  words,  their  doctrine  is,  that  non- 
episcopalians  are  no  part  of  the  Christian  church  ; 
but  are  "  children  of  wrath,"  and  without  a  single 
hope  founded  on  covenanted  mercy.  No  "  re- 
pentance toward  God ;"  no  "  faith  toward  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;"  no  conformity  to  his  image ; 
no  zeal  for  his  glory,  can  be  of  any  avail.     The 

Z-^tCj  tv'v  aXv;5£iav  i;^'  rjg  o-j5si5  -x'oi'jroTS  i^Xs^t], — Mar.  Anton. 
IJb.  J.  c.  21.  p.  50.  ed.  Gatakeri. 
Vol.  III.  4 


26  Review. 

simple  fact  of  their  separation  from  the  "  autho- 
rized," that  is  to  say,  from  the  episcopal  "  priest- 
hood," mars  their  religion,  and  renders  it  stark 
naught ! 

This  sweeping  sentence  oi  proscription  is  soft- 
ened by  representing  it  as  "  not  inconsistent 
with  that  charity  which  extends  mercy  to  all  who 
labour  under  involuntary  errour."  But  the  relief 
is  not  worth  accepting.  For  in  the  first  place,  so 
much  is  necessary  to  constitute  "  involuntary^^''  or 
as  it  is  elsewhere  called,  "  unavoidable^^''  errour, 
that  the  instances  in  which  the  plea  should  be  sub- 
stantiated would  be  rare  indeed.  Access  to  means 
of  instruction  precludes  it  effectually.  x\nd  as 
there  are  few  districts  where  this  question  can  be 
agitated,  without  episcopalians,  or  their  priests,  or 
their  writings,  the  errour  must  almost  always  be 
wilful ;  in  which  case  the  retreat  is  cut  off — and 
secondly^  we  have  no  ground  to  expect  even  this 
very  precarious  mercy,  but  the  charity  of  Mr.  H. 
and  his  brethren !  Warrant  from  the  word  of  God 
they  have  produced  none,  and  have  none  to  pro- 
duce. If  communion  with  the  authorized,  or  Epis- 
copal priesthood,  be  to  those  among  whom  the 
Gospel  is  proclaimed,  an  indispensable  condition 
of  salvation,  what  possible  escape  can  be  left  for 
those  who  reject  it  ?  The  very  idea  of  such  an 
escape,  however  to  be  effected,  is  repugnant  to 
that  of  an  indispensable  condition.  No  :  if  the  con- 
dition be  indispensable^  they   who  reject  it  must 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  17 

perish.  And  if  they  who  reject  it  may  still  be 
saved,  it  is  not  indispensable :  otherwise,  the  defi- 
nition might  run  thus,  an  indispensable  condition  is 
that  which  may  be  dispensed  with  !  The  alternative 
then  is,  Episcopacy  or  perdition  !  !  Prove  this, 
and  there  is  but  one  way  for  us :  rush  into  the 
arms  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  sooner  the 
better !  Prove  this,  and  for  our  part,  httle  as  we 
are  inclined  to  such  a  transition  at  present,  we 
will  take  refuge  immediately  in  her  communion ! 
He  is  a  fool  who  would  put  his  soul  in  jeopardy 
for  a  single  moment,  by  rejecting  an  "  indispen- 
sable condition  of  salvation ;"  and  risk  the  loss  of 
Heaven  upon  the  credit  of  the  charity  of  Mr.  H. 
and  Bishop  Horsley  !  !  We  are  sure  that  the 
drift,  and  have  little  doubt  that  the  design,  of  a 
number  of  Episcopal  publications  is  to  force  plain 
people  into  such  a  conclusion. 

But  before  the  authors  can  be  justified  in  utter- 
ing a  syllable  which  onl}  looks  toward  such  a  con- 
clusion, they  ought  to  be  perfectly  certain  of  their 
premises.  To  unchurch,  with  a  dash  of  the  pen, 
all  the  non-e*piscopal  denominations  under  Hea- 
ven ;  and  cast  their  members,  indiscriminately, 
into  a  condition  worse  than  that  of  the  very  Hea- 
then, is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  a  most  dreadful  ex- 
communication;  and  if  not  clearly  enjoined  by  the 
authority  of  God,  as  criminal  as  it  is  dreadful. 
That  all  those  glorious  churches  which  have 
flourished  in  Geneva,  Holland,  France,  Scotland, 


28  Review. 

England,  Ireland,  &;c.  since  the  reformation ;  and 
all  which  have  spread,  and  are  spreading  through 
this  vast  continent — that  those  heroes  of  the  truth, 
who,  though  they  bowed  not  to  the  mitre,  rescued 
milhons  from  the  man  of  sin,  lighted  up  the  lamp 
of  genuine  religion,  and  left  it,  burning  with  a  pure 
and  steady  flame  to  the  generation  following — 
that  all  those  faithful  ministers,  and  all  those  pri- 
vate christians,  who,  though  not  of  the  hierarchy, 
adorned  the  doctrine  of  God  their  Saviour,  hving 
in  faith,  dying  in  faith ;  scores,  hundreds,  thousands 
of  them  going  away  to  their  father's  house  under 
the  strong  consolations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with 
anticipated  heaven  in  their  hearts,  and  its  hallelu- 
jahs on  their  lips — that  all,  all  were  without  the 
pale  of  the  visible  church  ;  were  destitute  of  cove- 
nanted grace;  and  left  the  world  without  any 
chance  for  eternal  life,  but  that  unpledged,  unpro- 
mised  mercy  which  their  accusers  charitably  hope 
may  be  extended  to  such  as  labour  under  involun- 
tary or  unavoidable  errour ;  and  this  merely  be- 
cause they  renounced  Episcopacy — are  positions 
of  such  deep-toned  horrour  as  may  well  make  our 
hair  stand  up,  "  like  quills  upon  the  fretful  por- 
cupine ;"  and  freeze  the  warm  blood  at  its  foun- 
tain. We  say  this  sentance  has  been  pronounced 
upon  millions  of  the  dead  and  of  the  living,  merely 
because  they  were  not,  or  are  not.  Episcopal.  For 
Mr.  H.  and  his  friends  have  declared  in  substance, 
what  their  famous  Dodwell  has  declared  in  form. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  29 

that,  "  the  alone  want  of  communion  with  the  bishop^ 
makes  persons  aliens  from  God  and  Christy  and  strang- 
ers from  the  covenants  of  promise^  and  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel  r^ 

We  shall  hardly  be  accused.of  transgressing  the 
bounds  of  moderation,  when  we  demand  for  such 
assertions,  proof  which  demolishes  cavil,  and  shuts 
the  mouth  of  reply.  And  if  their  authors  cannot 
produce  it ;  if  they  be  not  ready  with  demonstra- 
tion, such  as  shall  make  "  assurance  double  sure," 
they  must  abide  the  consequences  of  their  te- 
merity. 

What  the  nature  of  their  proof  is,  and  how  it 
will  bear  them  out,  we  shall  enable  the  reader  to 
judge  before  we  finish  this  review.  We  pause  to 
make  two  observations. 

1.  The  writers  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  lay 
upon  the  form  of  church  government  a  stress 
which  is  not  laid  upon  it  in  the  word  of  God.  We 
are  far  from  insinuating  that  the  question  is  of 
small  moment;  we  are  persuaded,  on  the  contrary, 
that  it  is  of  great  moment ;  and  that  Christians 
are  chargeable  with  much  sin  for  the  indifference 
which  prevails  among  them  concerning  it.  We 
can  never  grant  that  the  appointments  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  may  be  innocently  neglected;  nor 

*  That  M.  H.  treads  closely  after  Dodwell,  see  "  Companion 
for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,''  p.  59.  Aud  that  the  author  of  "  me- 
morial of  the  late  Bishop  Hobart,"  if  a  judgment  may  be  drawn  from 
his  remerks  upon  these  Essays,  treads  equally  close.  See  "  me- 
morial." 


30  Review. 

that  any  one  is  excusable  for  not  endeavouring  to 
satisfy  himself  what  these  appointments  are.  But 
we  are  very  sure  that  particular  views  of  external 
church-order,  are  not  the  hinging  point  of  salva- 
tion. Whether  a  man  shall  go  to  heaven  or  to 
hell,  will  be  decided  by  another  inquiry  than  whe- 
ther he  was  an  Episcopahan,  a  Presbyterian,  or 
an  Independent.  The  scriptures  have  fixed  that 
inquiry  to  this  point,  whether  he  was  a  believer 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  or  not  ?  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized^  shall  be  saved :  and  he  that  believeth 
not,  shall  be  daimied.  Again.  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.  The  reverse 
is,  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  because 
he  hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten 
son  of  God.  According  to  these  passages,  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  as  he  is  exhibited  in  the  Gospel, 
is  "the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation." — 
According  to  Mr.  H.  and  his  compeers,  partici- 
pation of  Christian  ordinances  at  the  hands  of  the 
Episcopal  priesthood,  is  the  indispensable  condi- 
tion of  salvation.  We  are  not  ignorant  that  in 
other  sections  of  his  book,  Mr.  H.  dwells  with  in- 
terest and  force,  on  the  necessity  of  a  hving  and 
productive  faith.  We  are  glad  to  see  so  many 
things  in  a  strain  much  more  evangelical  than 
pervades  most  of  the  ministrations  in  his  church. 
But  this  inspires  us  with  the  deeper  regret  on  ac- 
count of  the  "  dead  flies"  among  the  precious 
"  ointment."     Nor  can  we  suppress  our  convic- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  31 

tion,  that  in  representing  an  adherence  to  Episco- 
pacy as  "  the  indispensable  condition  of  salvation," 
himself,  and  DAUBENY,*and  a  legion  more,  have 
done  much  tow^ard  misleading  men's  minds  as  to 
the  foundation  of  eternal  hope.  That  v^hich 
wounds  the  bosom  of  tender  piety,  and  of  which 
we  utterly  deny  the  correctness,  is  their  placing 
the  external  order  of  the  church  upon  a  level  with 
the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  in  the  article  of  ac- 
ceptance before  God.  We  are  positively  told  that 
soundness  in  the  former  is  "  the  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation ;"  and  faith  in  the  latter 
cannot  possibly  be  any  more.  Nay,  with  respect 
to  non-episcopalians,  Episcopacy  is  of  primary^ 
and  faith  in  the  Redeemer  of  secondary^  impor- 
tance :  for  we  are  told  again,  that  "  whoever  is  in 
communion  with  the  bishop^  the  supreme  Governor 
of  the  church  upon  earth,  is  in  communion  with 
Christ  the  head  of  it ;  and  whoever  is  not  in  com- 
munion with  the  bishop,  is  thereby  cut  off  from 
communion  with  Christ :"  and  this  is  said  to  be  a 
"  general  conclusion"  "  established"  by  "  the  uni- 
form testimony  of  ALL  the  apostolic  and  primitive 
writers."*  After  perusing  the  paragraph,  we  were 
held  in  suspense  between  the  gaze  of  astonish- 
I  ment  and  the  swell  of  indignation.  Why,  he  who 
is  acquainted  with  facts  well  knows ;  these  gen- 

*  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  59.  from  Daubeny. 
Quere.  How  many  bow-shots  are  such  writers  oflf  from  the  terri- 
tory of  "  our  sovereign  Lord  the  Pope  ?" 


32  Review. 

tlemen  ought  to  know ;  and,  in  due  season,  others 
whom  it  concerns  shall  know.  The  meaning  is 
not  obscure.  There  is  no  access  to  communion 
with  Christ,  but  through  communion  with  the 
bishop.  Yet,  Mr.  H.  himself  being  judge,  true 
faith  vitally  unites  its  possessor  to  the  Redeemer  -* 
and  in  this  "  vital  union"  originates  all  commu- 
nion with  him.  U^  therefore,  faith  in  Christ  pro- 
duces communion  with  him,  and  this  communion 
is  inaccessible  but  through  the  medium  of  the 
bishop,  it  follows  that  faith  in  Christ  is  impossible 
where  there  is  no  communion  with  the  bishop : 
and  that  all  non-episcopalians  are,  of  necessity, 
infidels.  And  thus  our  position  is  proved,  that 
Episcopacy  is  held  up  as  of  primary,  and  faith  in 
Christ  as  of  secondary,  importance.  For  as  both 
are  "indispensable  conditions  of  salvation,"  that 
one  upon  which  the  existence  of  the  other  de- 
pends, must  be  the  more  important  of  the  two. 
And  this  is  not  an  example  of  that  sort  of  priority 
which  obtains  in  the  relation  of  means  to  ends  ;  the 
use  of  the  former  preceding  the  attainment  of  the 
latter  ;  so  that  the  end,  which  is  the  greater,  pre- 
supposes and  follows  the  means,  which  are  the 
less.  The  case  before  us,  we  say,  is  not  of  this 
sort :  because  we  have  access  to  the  testimony  of 
God,  which  must  be  believed  in  order  to  salva- 
tion, without  going  through  the  gate  of  Episco- 

*  Companion  for  the  Altar ;  meditation  for  Thursday. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  33 

pacy.  It  may  be  urged,  that  faith  in  Christ  in- 
cludes the  principle  of  obedience  to  his  institu- 
tions ;  and  therefore  to  resist  them,  is  to  show  the 
want  of  that  obedience  which  flows  from  faith. 
Doubtless  the  faith  of  Christ  does  include  such  a 
principle.  But  this  no  more  proves  particular 
views  of  church  order,  than  it  proves  particular 
views  of  any  thing  else  which  is  regulated  by 
Christ's  authority,  to  be  the  "  indispensable  con- 
dition of  salvation."  Habitual  disobedience  to 
any  of  his  known  commands  will  exclude  from 
his  kingdom.  Yet  there  are  sins  both  of  ignorance 
and  infirmity  which  consist  with  a  gracious  state. 
And  why  an  errour  about  church-government  is 
not  to  be  classed  among  these,  the  Bible  has  as- 
signed no  reason.  And  if  the  high  church-men 
will  push  their  own  doctrine,  it  will  compel  them 
to  excommunicate  each  other  in  their  turn.  For 
it  is  no  secret  that  there  have  been  material  dif- 
ferences among  them  on  their  favourite  theme  : 
and  nothing  can  exceed  their  confusion  and  mu- 
tual contradiction,  when  they  attempt  to  found 
their  hierarchy  on  the  scriptures. 

At  times,  we  acknowledge,  they  concede  the 
possibility  of  "  penitence"  and  a  "  true  faith"  out 
of  their  church,  for  it  is  upon  this  concession  that 
they  rest  their  charity  for  the  non-episcopalian. 
But  as  their  concession  is  in  diametrical  repug- 
nance to  their  argument,  it  only  lets  us  see  that 

Vol.  III.  5 


34  Review, 

they  flinch  from,  the  consequences  of  their  own 
doctrine. 

Upon  the  whole,  we  have  the  best  evidence 
that  they  lay  an  unwarrantable  stress  upon  the 
form  of  ecclesiastical  order,  by  erecting  commu- 
nion with  their  priesthood  into  an  "  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation."  The  alarm  which  they 
have  sounded  on  this  subject,  is  vox  et  pr(^terea 
nihil,  mere  noise ;  and  need  give  no  disquiet  to  the 
most  timid  conscience. 

2.  Our  next  observation  is,  that  as  Mr.  H.  and 
his  fellows  have  denied  all  communion  with 
Christ,  to  non-episcopalians  they  are  bound  to 
show,  that  there  is  at  least,  more  of  the  truth  and 
efficacy  of  the  gospel  in  the  Episcopal  church 
than  in  all  other  connexions.  This  is  not  draw- 
ing invidious  comparisons  between  Christian  de- 
nominations, but  on  their  own  principles,  a  per- 
fectly fair  comparison  between  the  church  of 
Christ  and  a  set  of  associations  which  do  not  be- 
long to  it.  We  shall  account  it  no  hard  task  to 
prove  as  much  of  the  church  of  Christ  according 
to  our  views  ;  nor  ought  they.  For  assuredly,  if 
there  is  not  within  his  church  much  more  of 
power  and  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind ;"  much 
more  of  the  fear  of  God ;  of  "  receiving  Christ 
Jesus  the  Lord"  and  "  walking  in  him ;"  of  rever- 
ential attendance  upon  his  worship ;  of  domestic 
and  personal  godliness  ;  in  one  word,  much  more 
of  the  spiritual  life,  and  of  that  "  holiness  without 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  35 

which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord;"  if  much  more 
of  these  things  be  not  found  icithin  his  church 
than  without  it,  ^'  what  doth  it  profit  ?"  Will  Mr. 
H.  meet  the  ordeal  ?  Will  he  accompany  us  from 
temple  to  temple,  from  pulpit  to  pulpit,  from  house 
to  house,  from  closet  to  closet,  and  agree,  that  in 
proportion  as  there  is  little  or  much  of  "pure  and 
undefiled  religion"  in  them,  their  grade  in  the 
scale  of  Christian  churches  shall  be  low  or  high? 
Is  it,  then,  a  fact,  that  in  the  church  which  boasts 
of  the  only  vahd  ministrations,  and  the  exclusive 
prerogative  of  being  in  covenant  with  God,  there 
is  more  evangelical  preaching;  more  of  Christ 
crucified ;  more  plain,  close,  decisive  dealing  with 
the  consciences  of  men,  upon  the  things  which 
belong  to  their  peace,  than  in  many  of  the  chur- 
ches which  she  affects  to  despise  ?  Is  it  a  fact, 
that  her  "  authorized  priesthood"  are  more  scru- 
pulous about  the  preservation  of  pure  communion; 
that  they  object  more  strongly  to  the  admission 
of  mere  men  of  the  world ;  and  are  more  active 
in  excluding  from  their  fellowship  the  openly  irre- 
ligious, than  are  others  ?  Is  it  a  fact,  that  they 
adopt  more  prompt  and  vigorous  measures  to 
expel  from  their  pulpits  doctrine  which  flies  in  the 
face  of  their  avowed  principles,  and  is  acknowl- 
edged by  themselves  to  be  subversive  of  the  Chris- 
tian system  ?  Is  it  a  fact,  that  in  this  "  primitive 
Apostolic"  church,  the  sheep  of  Christ  and  his 
lambs  are  more  plentifully  fed  with  '*  the  bread  of 


36  Review. 

God  which  came  down  from  heaven  ?"  Or  that 
she  has  less  to  attract  the  thoughtless  gay,  and 
more  to  allure  those  who  become  seriously  con- 
cerned about  their  eternal  salvation,  than  is  to  be 
found  in  hundreds  of  churches  which  she  virtually 
"  delivers  unto  Satan  ?"  Are  these  facts  ?  We 
appeal  to  them  who  have  eyes  to  see,  and  ears  to 
hear ;  especially  to  them  who  "  have  tasted  that 
the  Lord  is  gracious."  The  interrogatories  and 
the  appeal  are  extremely  painful:  but  we  are  driven 
to  them  by  the  champions  of  the  hierarchy,  who 
appropriate  communion  with  Christ  to  their  own 
connexions.  We,  therefore,  put  them  upon  their 
trial  before  the  bar  of  scripture,  of  conscience, 
and  of  public  criticism.  We  demand  the  evidence 
of  their  exclusive  fellowship  with  the  Redeemer ; 
we  demand  it  for  our  own  sakes ;  we  insist  upon 
their  showing,  according  to  his  word,  the  superi- 
ority of  their  practical  rehgion  both  in  quantity 
and  quality.  If  they  cannot  or  will  not  answer,  no 
rational  man  will  be  at  a  loss  for  the  reason. 

An  Episcopal  church  we  do  know,  in  which 
there  are  hundreds  of  ministers,  and  thousands  of 
their  people,  who  are  "  valiant  for  the  truth ;" 
who  exemplify  in  their  own  persons  the  loveliness 
of  the  Christian  character,  and  who,  with  respect 
to  themselves,  will  never  shrink  from  the  strictest 
investigation.  Would  to  God,  we  could  say  as 
much  for  all  non-episcopalians  !  But  these  mem- 
bers of  that  church  who  give,  in  "  the  fruits  of 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  37 

righteousness,"  unequivocal  proof  that  the  "  Spirit 
of  Christ  is  in  them,"  are  not  the  persons  who 
advance  or  defend  such  claims  as  are  set  up  by- 
Messrs.  Daubeny  and  Hobart.  On  the  contrary, 
they  most  cordially  welcome  to  their  bosoms,  as 
heirs  with  themselves  of  the  grace  of  life,  all  those 
"  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity :" 
and  they  are  hated,  reviled,  persecuted,  by  those 
very  same  high  churchmen,  who,  like  Mr.  H.  and 
his  friends  are  for  confining  the  covenant  of  sal- 
vation to  their  own  precincts. 

We  have  reached  only  the  threshold  of  the 
work  which  we  proposed  to  enter  and  examine. 
But  if  we  have  detained  the  reader  with  prelimi- 
nary matter,  it  is  because  we  could  not  do  justice 
to  the  subject  without  it.  He  is  now  in  posses- 
sion of  facts  and  reasonings  to  show  that  the 
actual  discussions  relative  to  Episcopacy,  are  not 
to  be  classed  with  those  wrangles  of  party  which 
amuse  ignorant  zealots,  and  disgrace  sober  in- 
quiry. Nothing  less  is  agitated  than  the  question 
whether  as  non-episcopalians,  we  are  to  walk  in 
the  "faith  of  the  gospel,"  in  "joy  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  with  a  "  hope  that  maketh  not 
ashamed;"  or  be  shut  up  under  condemnation, 
reprobated  by  God  and  man  ?  As  we  did  not  be- 
gin the  controversy;  nor  engage  in  it  till  after 
long  forbearance  under  multiphed  provocation ; 
and  not  even  then,  till  we  felt  ourselves  called 
upon,  by  an  imperious  sense  of  duty,  to  vindicate 


38  Review, 

the  perverted  truth,  and  the  absurd  ordinances, 
of  our  master  in  Heaven;  so,  having  begun,  we 
shall  not  desist  until  we  shall  have  exposed  those 
arrogant  pretensions,  and  fallacious  reasonings, 
which  are  calculated  to  distress  and  deceive  the 
hearts  of  the  simple. 

Mr.  H.  in  his  preface  to  this  collection,  assures 
the  reader  that, 

"  The  author  of  Miscellanies  has,  with  great  industry,  col- 
lected together  all  the  arguments  against  Episcopacy."  p.  iv. 

We  apprehend  that  Mr.  H's  zeal,  in  this  para- 
graph, has  outstripped  his  caution.  A  man  pro- 
fesses to  have  a  very  extensive  and  accurate  ac- 
quaintance with  a  subject,  when  he  pledges  him- 
self to  the  public,  that  "  all  the  arguments"  on 
either  side  of  a  question  relating  to  it,  are  con- 
tained in  a  work  which  he  has  written  or  edited. 
And  if  the  work  be  defective,  especially  in  mate- 
rial points,  he  subjects  himself  to  comments  most 
mortifying  to  his  own  feelings,  most  painful  to  his 
friends,  and  not  desirable  even  to  his  opponents. 
We,  therefore,  think,  and  others  may  think  with 
us  before  we  shall  have  done,  that  Mr.  H.  ought 
not  to  have  committed  his  reputation  to  the  con- 
sequences of  such  an  assertion.  His  reserve  ought 
to  have  been  the  greater,  as  he  has  taken  some 
pains  to  invite  an  examination  of  his  scholarship. 
This  en  passant.     To  the  book  itself. 

"  The  question  of  Episcopacy,"  says  the  Lay- 
man in  his  9th  number,  "  is  a  question  of  fact,  to 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  M 

be  determined  by  a  sound  interpretation  of  the 
sacred  volume."  We  join  issue  with  him ;  and 
not  only  consent,  but  insist,  that  the  question  shall 
be  decided  by  the  scripture  alone.  We  detract 
not  from  the  respect  due  to  the  primitive  fathers, 
nor  decline  to  meet  their  testimony,  as  we  shall 
show  in  proper  season.  But  in  fixing  the  sense  of 
the  scripture,  their  authority  is  of  no  more  weight 
with  us  than  the  authority  of  other  uninspired 
men  ;  that  is,  we  regard  not  their  opinion  any 
further  than  as  it  is  supported  by  the  strength  of 
their  reasonings.  The  wTitten  word  is  the  perfect 
and  exclusive  rule  of  our  faith.  It  would  be  so, 
had  not  a  shred  of  Christian  antiquity  survived 
the  ravages  of  time.  And  if  all  the  fathers  from 
Barnabas  to  Bernard^  had  agreed  in  reckoning 
among  the  institutions  of  Christ,  any  thing  which 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  statute  book  of  his  own 
kingdom,  it  should  be  no  article  of  our  creed ;  and 
should  have  no  more  sway  in  our  conscience  than 
an  assertion  of  the  Layman  himself,  or  of  his  cle- 
rical friends.  This  being  understood,  let  us  see 
how  the  lines  of  evidence  run. 

The  author  of  "  miscellanies"  had,  in  No.  X. 
argued  the  identity  of  presbyters  and  bishops 
from  the  indiscriminate  use  which  the  scripture 
makes  of  these  official  terms.  His  antagonists 
flout  at  this  argument,  with  all  imaginable  con- 
tempt, through  every  part  of  the  discussion.  It  is 
"literally,"  say  they,  "  good  for  nothing:"  "  too 


40  Review, 

feeble  to  merit  a  serious  reply."  It  is  "  wretched 
sophistry" — "  the  old  and  miserable  sophistry  of 
names."  But  wherein  does  the  sophistry  con- 
sist }  Why  Paul  is  called  an  "  elder  ;"  therefore 
the  Presbyterian  argument  would  prove  that  Paul 
was  no  more  than  a  presbyter.  Christ  himself  is 
called  (^laxovo?)  diaconos,  which  is  translated  a  "  mi- 
nister," a  "  deacon ;"  therefore  the  Presbyterian 
argument  would  prove,  that  Christ  was  no  higher 
than  a  deacon. 

"  Presbuteros"  (f^sg^vrs^og)  "  signifies  an  elder  man;  whence 
comes  the  term  Alderman.  By  this  new  species  of  logic," 
(which,  hy  the  way,  is  at  least  more  than  1400  years  old,)  "  it 
might  be  proved,"  saith  the  Layman,  "  that  the  apostles  were, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes.  Aldermen,  in  the  civil  acceptation 
of  the  term ;  and  that  every  Alderman  is  really  and  truly  an 
Apostle."  p.  52,  53. 

If  this  argument  is  correct,  the  Presbyterians 
show  very  small,  no  doubt.  And  the  Layman  is 
not  to  blame  for  stigmatizing  it  as  "  wretched 
sophistry."  "  The  miserable  sophistry  of  names." 
Yet  the  reader  may  be  induced  to  pause,  when  he 
is  told  that  men  of  singular  acuteness,  learning, 
candour,  penetration,  and  force  of  mind,  have 
considered  this  self-same  argument,  when  fairly 
stated,  as  altogether  unanswerable.  There  may 
perhaps,  be  some  policy  in  trying  to  run  it  down 
with  hard  words  ;  for  the  Layman  acknowledges, 
that  the  "  Episcopalians  would  give  up  their  cause 
at  once^  if  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  placing  it 
on  such  a  basis."  p.  56.     Here  the  secret  is  dis« 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  41 

closed ;  if  the  argument  from  the  scriptural  use 
of  official  titles  is  valid,  down  goes  the  Hierarchy! 
Hlnc  nice  lacrymcB  !  No  wonder  that  the  attempts 
are  so  incessant  to  scowl,  and  scoff,  and  laugh  it 
out  of  countenance.  It  will  not,  however,  be 
parted  with  so  easily  ;  and  in  listening  to  a  good 
word  for  it,  the  reader  may  begin  to  think  it  pos- 
sible for  a  little  sophistry  to  trill  from  other  than 
Presbyterian  pens. 

In  examining  the  records  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, we  find  that  the  conversion  of  a  number  of 
individuals  to  the  Christian  faith,  was  followed  by 
their  organization  into  a  public  society  under  their 
proper  officers.  These  officers,  without  a  single 
exception^  are  distributed  into  the  two  general 
classes  of  presbyters  or  bishops^  and  deacons  :  the 
former  presiding  over  the  spiritual,  and  the  latter 
over  the  temporal,  interests  of  their  respective 
charges.  This  distinction  is  marked  in  the  strong- 
est manner,  and  is  never  confounded.  Thus  to  the 
saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philippi  with  the 
BISHOPS  and  deacons — a  bishop  must  be  blameless — 
likewise  must  the  deacons  be  grave,  S^'C. 

And  that  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  in  their 
appHcation  to  the  first  class  of  officers  are  per- 
fectly convertible,  the  one  pointing  out  the  very 
same  class  of  rulers  with  the  other,  is  as  evident  as 
the  sun  "  shining  in  his  strength."  Timothy  was 
instructed  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  the  qualities 
which  were  to  be  required  in  those  who  desired  the 

Y9I  III  e 


42  Review,  > 

office  of  a  bishop.*  Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained 
PRESBYTERS  in  cvcvy  churcht  which  they  had  found- 
ed. Titus  is  directed  to  ordain  in  every  city  pres- 
byters who  are  to  be  blameless^  the  husband  of  one 
wife.  And  the  reason  of  so  strict  a  scrutiny  into 
character  is  thus  rendered,  for  a  bishop  must  be 
blameless. X  If  this  does  not  identify  the  bishojj  with 
Xhe  presbyter.,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  what 
can  do  it  ?  Suppose  a  law,  pointing  out  the  quali- 
fications of  a  sheriff  were  to  say,  a  sheriff  must  be 
a  man  of  pure  character,  of  great  activity,  and  re- 
solute spirit ;  for  it  is  highly  necessary  that  a  go- 
vernour  be  of  unspotted  reputation,  &c.  the  bench 
and  bar  would  be  rather  puzzled  for  a  construc- 
tion, and  would  be  compelled  to  conclude,  either 
that  something  had  been  left  out  in  transcribing 
the  law  ;  or  that  governour  and  sheriff  meant  the 
same  sort  of  officer  ;  or  that  their  honours  of  the 
legislature  had  taken  leave  of  their  wits.  The 
case  is  not  a  whit  stronger  than  the  case  of  pres- 
byter and  bishop  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  Again  : 
Paul,  when  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  sends 
for  the  PRESBYTERS  of  Ephesus  to  meet  him  at 
Miletum  ;  and  there  enjoins  these  presbyters  to 
feed  the  church  of  God  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
made  them  bishops.  ||  It  appears,  then,  that  the 
bishops  to  whom  Paul  refers  in  his  instructions  to 
Timothy,  were  neither  more  nor  less  than  plain 

•  1  Tim.  iii.  1.     f  Acts.  xiv.  23.     X  Tit.  i.  5.     H  Act.  xx.  17.  28, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  43 

presbyters.  To  a  man  who  has  no  turn  to  serve  ; 
no  interest  in  perverting  the  obvious  meaning  of 
words ;  one  would  think  that  a  mathematical  de- 
monstration could  not  carry  -more  satisfactory 
evidence.  But  conclusive  as  it  would  be  in  every 
other  case,  it  is  in  this  case,  the  advocate  of  the 
Hierarchy  tells  us,  "  good  for  nothing,"  because 
Paul  is  called  an  '•'•  elder,"  and  Christ  a  "  deacon" 
as  well  as  a  "  bishop,"  and,  therefore,  if  the  argu- 
ment proves  any  thing,  it  proves  that  neither  the 
apostles  nor  their  Lord,  were  any  higher  in  au- 
thority than  our  elders  and  deacons. 

May  we  ask  whether  "  bishop,"  "  presbyter," 
"  deacon,"  signify  any  thing  at  all  as  terms  of  of- 
fice, or  not  ?  If  they  do  not,  then  the  scripture  has 
used  a  parcel  of  words  and  names  relative  to 
church  government,  which  are  absolutely  without 
meaning.  This  will  not  be  said.  Something,  there- 
fore, and  something  official  too,  they  must  mean. 
We  ask  again,  whether  or  not  they  designate  pre- 
cisely any  particular  officers,  as  mayor ^  alderman^ 
recorder^  do  in  the  commonwealth  }  Or  whether, 
like  the  term  magistrate,,  they  merely  express  au- 
thority in  general  ;  so  that  no  judgment  can  be 
formed  from  them  as  to  the  grade,  or  functions  of 
the  offices  to  which  they  are  annexed  }  If  the  for- 
mer, the  assailant  of  the  Hierarchy,  its  own  friends 
being  judges,  is  invincible,  and  their  citadel  is  laid 
in  the  dust.  Of  course,  they  prefer  the  latter  ; 
and  insist  that  the  official  title  occurring  in  the 


44  Review, 

New  Testament,  can  afford  no  aid  in  ascertaining 
what  offices  Christ  hath  instituted  in  his  church. 
If  this  is  their  hope,  we  much  fear  that  it  is  a  for- 
lorn hope  indeed. 

If  our  question  be  not  troublesome,  we  would 
ask,  what  is  the  use  of  names  ?  Is  it  not  to  distin- 
guish objects  from  each  other  ?  To  prevent  the 
confusion  which  must  pervade  conversation  about 
nameless  things  ?  And  to  facilitate  the  intercourse 
of  speech,  by  compressing  into  a  single  term, 
ideas  which,  without  that  expedient,  would  be 
protracted  through  descriptions  of  intolerable 
length  ?  Now  if  there  are  not  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment appropriate  titles  of  office  which  distinguish 
the  several  officers  from  each  other,  there  could 
havl&  been  no  such  titles  in  use  at  the  time  when 
that  book  was  written?  For  it  would  surpass  the 
credulity  of  infidels  themselves,  to  imagine  that 
the  writers,  by  purposely  omitting  the  particular^ 
and  employing  only  the  general^  terms  of  office, 
would  throw  both  their  history  and  their  readers 
into  utter  confusion.  There  can  be  no  possible 
reason  for  omitting  terms  characteristic  of  the 
several  offices,  but  the  fact  that  no  such  terms  ex- 
isted. A  marvellous  phenomenon  this  !  That  an 
immense  society  as  the  Christian  church  is,  should 
be  organized  under  its  proper  officers;  should 
ramify  itself  through  all  the  nations  of  the  earth ; 
should  have  every  one  of  its  branches  regularly  of- 
ficered ;  and  yet  be  destitute  of  names  by  which 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  4t§^ 

the  officers  might  be  correctly  known;  so  that 
when  an  official  term  was  mentioned,  no  ingenui- 
ty could  guess  whether  an  officer  inspired  or  un- 
inspired, ordinary  or  extraordinary,  highest  or 
lowest  in  the  church,  was  intended  ! ! !  Did  any 
thing  like  this  ever  happen  in  the  affairs  of  men, 
from  father  Adam,  down  to  this  present  A.  D. 
1807  ?  Is  such  a  fact  consistent  with  the  nature 
and  use  of  human  language  ?  Is  it  consistent  with 
the  operations  or  the  being  of  any  society  what- 
ever ?  If  the  state  of  the  primitive  church  with 
respect  to  terms  of  office,  were  such  as  the  Epis- 
copal argument  represents  it,  she  would  indeed, 
have  been 

Mostrum  horrendum,  informe^  ingens^  ciii  lumen  ademptum  ; 

a  perfectly  unnatural  and  monstrous  production ; 
dark  and  confused  as  "  Chaos  and  old  Night." 

This  demonstration  that  the  representation  on 
the  part  of  the  Hierarchy  cannot  be  true,  accords 
precisely  with  scriptural  facts.  From  these,  there- 
fore, we  shall  prove  that  it  is  not  true.  A  contro- 
versy of  moment  was  referred  by  the  church  at 
Antioch,  to  the  apostles  and  elders  of  Jerusalem. 
Now,  \{  apostle  and  elder  are  not  specific  terms  of 
office,  where  is  the  propriety  of  the  distinction  } 
And  to  whom  was  the  reference  made  ?  Would 
the  description  have  answered  as  well  if  the  as- 
sembly had  been  composed  eniircly.  of  apostles; 
entirely  of  elders ;  or  entirely  of  deacons  ?  Paul  and 


46  R 


eview 


Barnabas  ordained  elders  (presbyters)  in  every 
city.  Cannot  an  Episcopalian  tell,  even  from  the 
name^  whether  they  ordained  bishops,  priests,  or 
deacons  ?  Titus  was  commissioned  by  Paul  to 
ordain  elders  in  every  city  :  and  Timothy  received 
his  instructions  pointing  out  the  qualifications  of 
men  who  were  to  be  made  bishops  and  deacons. 
Pray,  if  the  ojicer  was  not  precisely  designated  by 
the  name,  what  sense  was  there  in  giving  particu- 
lar instructions  relative  to  each  ?  How  were 
Titus  and  Timothy  to  find  out  what  sort  of  offi- 
cers the  apostle  meant  ?  Would  any  Episcopalian 
affirm,  that  under  cover  of  the  indefinite  terms 
elder,  bishop,  and  deacon,ihe  good  evangelists  might 
have  settled  down  a  dozen  diocesans  in  every  city  ? 
or  created  a  score  of  new  aposdes  ?  Why  not  ? 
if  aposde,  bishop,  presbyter,  deacon,  are  only  general 
terms  of  office,  but  are  not  appropriated  to  any 
particular  orders  of  officers.  Nay,  if  the  Episco- 
pal assertion  on  this  subject  is  correct,  a  broad 
line  of  absurdity  runs  through  the  apostolic  wri- 
tings, and  through  the  whole  transactions  of  the 
apostolic  church. 

The  simple  truth  is,  that  all  these  terms,  apostle, 
bishop,  and  presbyter,  and  deacon,  were  as  distinc- 
tive, and  were  annexed  to  certain  officers  with 
as  much  regularity  and  exactness,  as  any  official 
terms  can  be  at  this  hour.  The  first  was  given 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  officers  commission- 
ed immediately  by  himself,  for  the  purpose  of  car- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  47 

rying  his  name  and  establishing  his  church  among 
the  nations.  The  last,  viz.  deacon^  was  given  to 
officers  ordained  by  the  apostles  to  look  after  the 
poor.  The  other,  viz.  elder^  or  presbyter^  had  long 
been  in  use  as  a  specific  term  of  office.  It  signi- 
fied a  ruler ;  but  a  ruler  whose  power  was  well 
defined,  and  was  perfectly  familiar  to  the  Jews. 
Presbyters  were  to  be  found  in  every  synagogue ; 
and  every  man  in  the  nation  was  acquainted  with 
their  functions.  If  ever  there  was  a  term  which 
conveyed  precise  ideas  of  a  particular  office,  and 
was  too  notorious  to  be  mistaken,  presbyter  was 
that  term.  By  transferring  it  to  rulers  in  the 
Christian  church,  the  greatest  caution  was  taken 
both  to  prevent  misconception  of  their  authority, 
and  to  facilitate  the  organization  of  Christian  so- 
cieties. As  there  were  Jews  every  where,  and 
converts  every  where  gathered  from  among  them, 
there  were  every  where  a  number  prepared  to 
fall,  without  difficulty,  into  a  regular  church  con- 
nexion, and  to  train  the  Gentile  behevers,  to  whom 
the  whole  system  was  perfectly  new.  But  they 
would  have  talked  of  elders  to  the  day  of  their 
death,  without  the  most  distant  notion  of  such  a 
ruler  as  a  diocesan  bishop.  These  Christian pre.?^?/- 
ters  were  also  bishojjs  (siriaxo'jfoi,^  The  former  w^ord 
denoting  their  authority  ;  the  latter,  the  functions 
growing  out  of  it.  They  were,  according  to  the 
form  in  which  the  master  had  distributed  their 
duties,  to  execute  the  office  of  presbyters^  by  taking 


48  ,  Review. 

the  episcopate  or  oversight  of  the  flock.  So  charges 
Paul  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus :  Feed  the  flock  of 
God^  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  yon  bishops 
i.  e.  overseers^  or  inspectors.  So  charges  Peter  the 
presbyters  of  the  dispersion :  Feed  the  flock  of  God — 
taking  the  oversight  thereof:  the  word  is  S'rKTxo-n'ouvTf^, 
which  signifies,  "  exercising  the  Episcopal  o/%ce." 

If,  then,  the  term  presbyter  or  elder.,  had  been  so 
long  settled ;  if  it  denoted  an  officer  as  unlike  a 
modern  bishop  as  can  well  be  conceived :  and  if 
it  was  admitted  universally  into  the  Christian 
church,  as  thus  understood,  (for  there  is  no  inti- 
mation of  its  sense  having  been  changed,)  then 
the  allegation  of  the  Hierarchy,  that  it  is  an  inde- 
finite term,  signifying  merely  a  ruler,  without  re- 
ference to  his  station,  is  altogether  false,  and  the 
objection  founded  upon  this  allegation  is  altoge- 
ther frivolous.  On  the  other  hand,  the  argument 
founded  upon  it  for  the  identity  of  the  scriptural 
bishops  and  presbyters  as  rulers  in  the  church,  to 
the  exclusion  of  prelates,  is  solid  and  strong;  the 
flings  of  "  good  for  nothing,"  and  "  miserable  so- 
phistry," to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

We  have  derived  some  amusement  from  re- 
marking, that  while  our  Episcopal  friends  perti- 
naciously deny  that  any  official  name  in  the  New 
Testament  is  so  appropriated  to  a  particular  of- 
fice as  to  designate  the  kind  of  officer,  they  can- 
not render  their  own  reasoning  intelligible  with- 
out the  aid  of  the  very  principle  which  they  reject. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  49 

"  Tlie  apostles,"  saijs  the  Laijman,  "  are  called  presbyters. 
This  proves  conclusively  that  no  argument  can  be  drawn,  by 
the  advocate  of  parity,  from  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  terms 
presbyter,  bishop,  in  the  sacred  writings.  If  it  proves  that 
there  is  now  but  one  order  in  the  ministry,  it  proves  e(|ually 
that  Paul  was  upon  a  perfect  level  with  the  elders  of  Ephe- 
sus."*     Again, 

"  Christ  is  called  diaconos,  which  is  translated  deacon,  or 
minister.  Therefore  Christ  was  on  a  level  with  the  deacons 
of  Jerusalem." 

Does  not  every  reader  perceive,  at  the  first 
glance,  that  the  whole  force  of  this  objection, 
which  is  to  put  down  the  advocates  of  ministeri- 
al parity,  depends  upon  the  supposition,  that  pres- 
byter and  deacon  are  titles  appropriated  to  par- 
ticular grades  of  office  ?  For  if  they  are  not,  if 
they  denote  only  office  in  general;  what  will  the 
objections  ay  .'^  To  try  it  fairly — substitute  officers^ 
in  the  room  of  elders ;  and  the  proposition  will 
stand  thus :  the  apostles  are  called  elders  ;  there- 
fore, the  apostles  are  on  a  level  with  officers  in  the 
church.  This  is  not  likely  to  fill  the  "  advocates 
of  parity,"  with  any  great  alarm.     Again, 

"  The  apostle  addresses  Timothy  and  him  alone,  as  the 
supreme  governor  of  the  church,  [of  Ephesus]  calling  upon 
him  to  see  that  his  presbyters  preach  no  strange  doctrine."! 

Here  the  Layman  uses  presbyter  as  a  precise 
term,  for  a  particular  grade  of  officers  ;  and  so 
does  the  apostle  in  the  epistle  referred  to,  or  else 
the  Layman's  argument,  to  quote  his  own  words, 
"  is  literally  good  for  nothing."  Nay,  he  even  con- 

*  No.  1.  Colhc.  p.  8.     f  Layman,  No.  v.  Collec.  p.  55. 
Vol.  III.  7 


50  Review, 

cedes  that  the  term  presbuteros^  elder,  is  "  ordina- 
rily appropriated  in  the  New  Testament,  to  the 
second  grade  of  ministers  ;"  although,  "  it  is  ca- 
pable of  being  applied  to  all  the  grades."*  But 
how  we  are  to  discover  when  it  is  applied  in  one 
way,  and  when  in  the  other ;  i.  e.  when  it  has  a 
particular,  and  when  a  general  signification,  nei- 
ther this  gentleman  nor  his  reverend  associates 
have  been  pleased  to  tell  us.  If  we  are  to  judge 
from  facts,  which  they  recommend  as  an  excellent 
way  of  judging,  and  if  we  collect  facts  from  their 
own  conduct  in  the  debate,  the  rule  is  this,  Pt-es- 
byter  is  always  a  definite  term  of  office  when  it  makes 
FOR  the  prelates^  and  always  an  indefinite  one^  ivhen 
it  makes  against  them.  For  example :  When 
Timothy  is  to  be  proved  a  bishop,  in  the  genuine 
prelatical  sense  of  the  word,  presbyter  infallibly 
signifies  the  second  grade  of  ministers.  This  is 
sober,  solid  logic,  which  no  man  who  can  put  a 
syllogism  together  must  venture  to  dispute.  On 
the  other  side,  when  Paul,  addressing  these  same 
presbyters,  seems  to  identify  them  with  bishops ; 
then  presbyter  is  nothing  more  than  a  general 
term  of  office  :  and  the  argument  drawn  from  its 
being  convertible  with  episcopos,  or  bishop,  is 
"  literally  good  for  nothing,"  "  the  old  and  mise- 
rable sophistry  of  names !" 

All  this,  to  be  sure,  is  vastly  ingenious,  and  in- 
finitely removed  from  sophistry  and  quibble !  But 

*  No.  1.  Collec.  p.  7. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  51 

as  imagination  is  apt  now  and  then  to  be  unruly, 
we  fancied  that  it  is  not  unhke  the  Socinian  me- 
thod of  defending  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures. 
Let  those  great  luminaries  of  wisdom,  Dr.  Priestley 
and  his  compeers,  patch  up  the  "  lame  accounts" 
of  Moses ;  refute  the  "  inconclusive"  reasonings 
of  Paul;  and  otherwise  alter  and  amend  the  Bible, 
as  their  philosophy  shall  dictate ;  and,  then,  the 
sacred  writings  will  be  inspired  to  some  purpose ! 
Let  the  abettors  of  prelacy  interpret  terms  now 
one  way,  and  then  the  contrary  way,  as  it  shall  suit 
their  convenience,  and  they  will,  no  doubt,  convert 
the  New  Testament  into  a  forge  for  the  Hierar- 
chy, and  swear  in  an  apostle  to  superintend  the 
manufacture. 

But  still,  how  are  we  to  repel  the  consequence 
with  which  they  press  us  .^^  If  presbyter  and  dea- 
con are  definite  terms  of  office,  and  the  apostles 
are  called  presbyters,  and  their  Lord  a  deacon, 
(^jaxovoff)  we  certainly,  by  our  argument,  confound 
all  distinctions  :  and  put  the  apostles,  and  their 
master  too,  on  a  level  with  the  ordinary  and  even 
lowest  officers  in  the  church. 

No  such  thing.  The  conclusion  is  vain,  because 
the  premises  are  false.  The  objection  overlooks 
a  distinction  which  its  authors  themselves  are 
compelled  to  observe  every  hour  of  their  lives ; 
and  that  is,  the  distinction  between  the  absolute 
and  relative  lise  of  terms.  By  the  absolute  use  of 
terms,  we  mean  their  being  applied  to  certain 


52  Review. 

subjects  in  such  a  manner  as  to  sink  their  gene- 
ral sense  in  a  particular  one.  By  their  relative  use, 
we  mean  their  being  coupled  with  other  terms 
which  permit  them  to  be  understood  in  their  ge- 
neral sense  only.  To  the  former  class  belong  all 
names  which,  however  general  in  their  primary 
ideas,  have  become  appropriated  to  particular  ob- 
jects. To  the  latter  belong  the  innumerable  ap- 
plications which  may  be  made  of  the  very  same 
terms,  when  not  thus  appropriated.  Examples 
will  best  illustrate  the  distinction.  Co}igressJiiJge, 
assemble/,  are  terms  of  great  latitude,  and  their  ap- 
plications may  be  varied  without  end.  When  we 
say  a  congress  of  bodies,  of  waters,  of  people — a 
judge  of  music,  of  sculpture,  of  painting — an  as- 
sembly  of  citizens,  of  clergy,  of  delegates  ;  all  the 
world  perceives  that  these  terms  are  used  in  their 
general  sense,  and  can  be  used  in  no  other.  But 
when  we  speak  of  the  United  States,  and  say,  the 
congress^  the  judges  ;  or  of  the  state  of  New-York, 
and  say,  the  judges^  the  assembly.,  all  the  world  per- 
ceives that  the  terms  are  used  in  a  particular 
sense,  and  designate  precisely  certain  public  of- 
ficers to  whom,  and  to  whom  alone,  every  man, 
woman,  and  child,  in  the  country  will  refer  them. 
Now  supposing  that  certain  individuals  should  re- 
mit a  litigated  point  to  one  of  the  judges^  and  we 
should  insist  that  this  may  mean  the  Lieut.  Gover- 
nour,  because  the  term  judge  7nay  be  applied  to 
him,  when  he  sits  in  the  court  of  errours :  and 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  53 

suppose  an  opponent  to  urge  that  "  judge"  is  an 
official  term  appropriated  to  known  officers  ;  and 
us  to  reply,  your  argument  is  "  literally  good  for 
nothing,"  "  the  miserable  sophistry  of  names ;" 
judge  is  a  generic  term;  and  by  this  same  mode 
of  reasoning  you  might  prove  that  every  justice  of 
the  peace  is  on  a  level  v^ith  the  chief  justice  of 
the  United  States,  or  with  God  himself,  because 
"  judge"  is  a  name  given  to  them  all !  !  Would 
not  this  pass  for  most  sage  ratiocination,  and 
persuade  the  pubUc,  that  whoever  should  not  bow 
to  it,  must  be  either  a  "  miserable"  sophist,  or  an 
incorrigible  dunce  ?  And  wherein  it  would  yield 
the  praise  of  acuteness,  closeness,  or  strength,  to 
the  Episcopal  objection  to  the  argument  drawn  by 
the  advocates  of  parity  from  the  use  of  o^aa/ terms 
in  the  New  Testament,  we  are  unable  to  discern. 
The  mistake  in  both  cases  is  the  same,  viz.  the 
confounding  the  absolute  and  relative,  or  as  we 
have  explained  it,  the  official  and  unofficial  use  of 
the  same  term.  Make  this  plain  distinction,  and 
the  reply  of  the  Hierarchy  is  ruined.  The  Lord 
Jesus  is  emphatically  the  sent  of  God;  and  there- 
fore he  is  called,  the  apostle  of  our  profession.* 
He  is  also  called  the  minister  (diaconos)  of  the  cir- 
cumcision ;t  but  never,  absolutely,  "  an  apostle," 
"  a  deacon."  Paul  and  his  fellow  apostles  are 
often  called  diaconoi^  ministers ;  in  such  form  as 
this,  ministers  of  god,  ministers  of  the  new  testa- 
♦  Heb.  iii.  1.  f  Rom.  xv.  8. 


54  Re 


view. 


MENT  :*  but  never,  absolutely,  "  deacons."  They 
are  also  called  elders^  ox  presbyters ;  and  for  this 
very  good  reason,  that  possessing  ordinary  as  well 
as  extraordinary  powers,  they  frequently  partici- 
pated in  the  councils,  and  exercised  only  the  au- 
thority, of  presbyters.t 

Reverse  the  order  :  begin  with  the  lowest  and 
go  up  to  the  highest  officer  in  the  church,  and  you 
will  not  find  an  instance  in  which  the  official  name 
of  the  superiour  is  applied  to  the  inferiour.  Dea- 
cons are  no  where  called  presbyters,  nor  presby- 
ters, apostles.  Cyprian  does,  indeed,  assert,  that 
"  the  apostolic  authority  was  manifestly  commu- 
nicated to  Epaphroditus."     Where  is  the  proof  .'^ 

"  St.  Paul,"  sajs  he,  "  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  ii. 
25,  calls  him  the  apostle  to  the  Philippians."  "  But  I  sup- 
posed it  necessary  to  send  to  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother 
and  companion  in  labour  and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  apos- 
tle," (in  our  version,  your  messenger.)  Accordingly  St.  Je- 
rome observes,  "  by  degrees,  in  process  of  time,  others  were 
ordained  apostles  by  those  whom  our  Lord  had  chosen" — as 
that  passage  to  the  Philippians  shows.  "  I  supposed  it  ne- 
cessary to  send  unto  you  "  Epaphroditus,  your  apostle."  And 
Theodoret,  upon  this  place,  gives  this  reason  why  Epaphro- 
ditus is  called  the  apostle  to  the  Philippians.  "  He  was  in- 
trusted with  the  Episcopal  government,  "  as  being  their 
bishop."  But  these  are  parts  of  scripture  on  which  the  advo- 
cates of  Episcopacy  place  the  least  reliance."^ 

In  this  paragraph,  as  in  many  others,  the  asser- 

2  Cor.  vi.  4. 
t  This  matter  shall  be  more  fully  explained  hereafter. 
X  Cyprian,  No.  iii.  Colkc.  p.  72. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  55 

tions  of  Cyprian,  applauded  and  adopted  by  Mr. 
H.  display  more  haste  than  inquiry,  and  more  ar- 
dour than  discretion.  To  force  a  testimony  in 
favour  of  Episcopacy,  he  has  contrived,  by  a  false 
translation  of  two  words,  to  put  into  the  mouth  of 
the  apostle  Paul  a  speech  which  he  never  uttered. 
"  St.  Paul,"  says  he,  "  calls  Epaphroditus,  the  apos- 
tle to  the  Philippians."  Paul  does  no  such  thing ; 
he  would  not  have  spoken  truth,  if  he  had.  No 
person,  as  shall  be  proved  in  its  place,  could  be 
vested  with  apostolic  authority,  but  by  the  imme- 
diate appointment  of  Christ  himself  Such  an  ap- 
pointment Epaphroditus  had  not ;  and,  therefore, 
Paul  did  not,  could  not,  call  him  "  an  apostle," 
in  the  official  sense  of  that  term ;  much  less  "  the 
apostle  to  the  PhiHppians ;"  because  a  permanent 
connexion  with  any  particular  church,  hke  that 
which  subsists  between  a  presbyter  and  his  con- 
gregation, or  between  a  prelate  and  his  diocese, 
was  essentially  incompatible  with  the  apostolic 
character.  We  wonder  that  Cyprian^  while  his 
hand  was  in,  did  not  fix  down  Paul  himself  as  the 
diocesan  of  Corinth  and  its  dependencies.  For 
his  own  v/ords  to  the  Christians  of  that  city  are. 
If  I  be  not  an  apostle  unto  others^  yet  doubtless  I  am 
TO  YOU  :  for  the  seal  of  mine  apostleship  are  ye  in  the 
Lord.*  Here  occurs,  in  a  fair  and  honest  trans- 
lation, the  very  phrase  of  "  an  apostle  to  a  peo- 
ple," which  Cyprian  fabricated  by  a  gross  mis- 

^  •  1  Cor.  ix.  2. 


56  R 


evtew. 


rendering  of  a  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians.  And  considering  the  anxiety  with  which 
the  New  Testament  has  been  searched  for  prelates, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  stubborn,  most  stub- 
born facts  did  not  stand  in  the  way,  Paul  would 
have  been  made  up  into  a  diocesan  long  ago: 
and  introduced  to  our  acquaintance,  with  the 
mitre  on  his  brow,  as  the  bishop  of  Corinth.  But 
if  the  declaration,  '•  1  am  an  apostle  unto  you,"  is 
no  proof  whatever,  that  Paul  filled  an  Episcopal 
see  among  the  Corinthians  ;  how  can  the  expres- 
sion, "  an  apostle  to  you,"  even  admitting  it  to  be 
correct,  prove  that  Epaphroditus  was  bishop  of 
Philippi  ?  But  the  words,  mangled  by  Cyprian  into 
an  "  apostle  to  you,"^  signify  just  what  our  com- 
mon version  represents  them  to  signify,  "  your 
messenger."  The  Phihppians  had  sent  him  with 
a  contribution  to  the  relief  of  the  apostle's  wants ; 
as  he  himself  tells  us  in  the  fourth  chapter,  [have 
all  and  abound :  I  am  full;  having  received  of  Epa- 
phroditus the  things  which  ivere  sent  from  you — v.  18. 
This  is  the  reason  why  he  is  called  their  messen- 
ger. The  coupling  of  the  term  apostolos  with 
"  your,"  takes  it  out  of  the  predicament  of  official 
names,  and  requires  that  it  be  understood  in  its 
general  sense,  which  is,  "  a  messenger."  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  Episcopal  relations,  or  clerical 
functions  of  any  sort;  say  Theodoret  what  he 
pleases.     It  was  hardly  just  to  found  the  title  of  a 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  57 

bishop  in  the  murder  of  a  text.  But  whatever 
sentence  be  pronounced  on  Theodoret,  we  entire- 
ly acquit  Cyprian  from  the  charge  of  sinning 
against  knowledge. 

Cyprian  seems  also  to  labour  under  the  incon- 
venience of  a  bad  memory.  For  after  agree- 
ing with  his  friend  the  Layman  to  reprobate  all 
reasoning  from  words  to  things  ;  he  lays  the  whole 
stress  of  an  argument  for  the  prelatical  dignity  of 
Epaphroditus  upon  a  single  word.  And  so  mighty 
is  the  force  of  this  word  in  his  eyes,  that  on  the 
strength  thereof,  he  says  that  the  "  Apostolic  au- 
thority was  manifestly  communicated  to  Epaphro- 
ditus." When  the  fact  turns  out -to  be,  that  even 
the  word  which  is  to  manifest  this  "  communica- 
tion," has  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject !  And 
then,  to  finish  neatly,  he  informs  us  in  the  close 
of  the  paragraph,  that  "  these  are  parts  of  scrip- 
ture on  which  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  place 
the  least  reliance^  They  are  wise  to  let  the  this- 
tle alone  after  feeling  its  prickles — But  it  is  rather 
incongruous  to  place  only  "  the  least  reliance''''  up- 
on "  parts  of  scripture"  which  "  manifestly^''  prove 
the  very  point  they  would  be  at.  And  no  less  so, 
to  build  their  "  manifest"  proof  upon  an  argument 
which  they  themselves  have  pronounced  to  be 
"  miserable  sophistry,"  and  "  literally  good  for 
nothin"^  !"* 

*  These  gentlemen  are  hardly  civil  to  their  favourite  Theodo- 
ret, from  whom,  through  Whitby  and  Potter,  they  borrowed  this 
Vol.  III.  8 


58  Review 

Verum  operi  longo  fas  est  ubrepere  somnum  : 

the  right  to  be  drowsy,  in  protracted  toil,  has  be- 
come prescriptive.  Homer  occasionally  nodded ; 
and  we  shall  not  refuse  to  Cyprian  and  his  col- 
leagues the  indulgence  of  a  nap. 

The  sum  is,  that  the  terms  apostle^  bishop^  pres- 
byter^ deacon^  designate,  with  precision,  officers 
known  and  established  in  the  apostolic  church — 
That  no  two  of  these  terms  are  used  interchange- 
ably, excepting  "  presbyter"  and  "  bishop."  We 
mean  that  apostle  and  bishop ;  apostle  and  pres- 
byter ;  apostle  and  deacon ;  bishop  and  deacon ; 
presbyter  and  deacon,  are  never  put  promiscuous- 
ly the  one  for  the  other ;  And  the  reason  is,  that 
they  do  not  signify  the  smne  thing.  But  that  "  bish- 
op" and  "  presbyter"  are  used  interchangeably ; 
so  that  you  may  put  the  one  for  the  other  at 
pleasure,  without  destroying  or  obscuring  the 
sense  of  the  sacred  wTiters  :  and  the  reason  is,  and 
must  be,  that  they  do  signify  the  same  thing;  that 
is,  they  mark  one  and  the  same  grade  of  ecclesi- 
astical rulers.  This  last  proposition,  Theodoref^ 
fierce  as  he  was  for  prelacy,  has  himself  advanced. 
He  probably  did  not  observe  how  fatal  it  is  to  the 
hierarchy,  as  the  discussions  on  that  subject  were 
not,  in  his  day,  very  deep  nor  general.  But  so 
sensible  w^as  Dr.  Hammond,  the  most  learned, 

"  manifest"  communication  of  the  apostolic  authority — to  hold 
him  up  with  one  hand  as  a  venerable  defender  of  their  cause ;  and 
with  the  other  to  lash  him  as  a  miserable  sophist. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  59 

perhaps,  of  all  the  episcopal  champions,  that  the 
argument  drawn  by  presbyterians  from  the  iden- 
tity of  the  scriptural  bishop  and  presbyter,  is  con- 
clusive against  prelacy,  that  he  boldly  denied  the 
existence  of  such  officers  as  are  now  called  pres- 
byters, till  about  or  after  the  death  of  the  apos- 
tles.^    In  supporting  this  paradoxical  opinion,  he 

*  "  Although  this  title  of  U^scflBvrs^oiyElders,  have  been  extend- 
ed to  a  second  order  in  the  church,  and  is  now  only  in  use  for  them, 
under  the  names  of  Presbyters,  yet  in  the  scripture-times  it  belong- 
ed principally,  if  not  alone,  to  bishops,  there  being  no  evidence 
that  any  of  that  second  order  were  then  instituted,  though  soon 
after,  before  the  writing  of  Ignatius'  epistles,  there  were  such  in- 
stituted in  all  the  churches." — Hammond,  on  Act  xi.  30.  p.  380. 

How  irrecoucileably  all  this  is  at  war  with  the  assertions  and 
reasonings  of  other  learned  advocates  of  the  hierarchy,  from  whom 
the  unlearned  ones  necessarily  copy,  we  may  amuse  ourselves  with 
showing  in  a  more  convenient  place.  One  or  two  remarks  we 
cannot  suppress.  Dr.  Hammond  does  not  tell  us  how  these  pres- 
byters came  into  the  church,  but  is  pretty  sure  that  they  were  in- 
troduced after  "  the  scripture  times,"  that  is,  after  the  canon  of  the 
scripture  was  completed,  and  "  before  the  writing  of  Ignatius'  cjpis- 
tles:'  The  Dr.  then  confesses  that  the  order  of  presbyters  asinferiour 
to  the  bishop,  is  not  of  divine  right ;  there  being  no  evidence  that 
any  of  that  second  order  were  instituted  in  scripture  times :  con- 
sequently, that  as  Christ  had  regulated  his  church,  bishops  or  pres- 
byters, and  deacons,  had  no  intermediate  officer  between  them. 
This  is  exactly  what  the  presbyterians  maintain,  and  they  are 
much  his  debtor.  But  as  he  saw  that  their  argument  would  ruin 
him,  as  he  was  utterly  unable  to  controvert  its  principle,  viz.  the 
identity  of  the  bishop  and  presbyter ;  and  as  he  was  determined 
not  to  give  up  the  hierarchy,  he  had  recourse  to  the  extravagant 
fiction  of  transforming  all  the  presbyters  into  Diocesans.  But  as 
Diocesans  with  only  deacons,  would  constitute  rather  a  bald 
hierarchy,  it  was  requisite,  to  give  eclat  to  their  dignity,  to  foist  in 


60  Review, 

metamorphoses  every  presbyter  of  the  apostolic 
church  into  a  diocesan  bishop !  The  meaning  of 
language  shall  be  inverted:  the  testimony  of  the 
scripture  shall  be  dislocated  :  the  presbyters  of 
the  city  of  Ephesus  shall  be  an  assemblage  of  dio- 
cesan bishops  collected  from  all  Asia!  Truth, 
probability,  and  common  sense,  shall  be  set  at 
naught — but  the  object  is  worth  the  price;  the 
sacrifice  is  amply  compensated,  provided  presby- 
ters be  banished  from  the  New  Testament,  and 
no  ruler  be  seen  there  unless  in  the  shape  of  a 
diocesan  bishop  !  Had  only  the  Layman  and  C?/- 
prian,,  and  their  friends,  been  troubled,  there  had 
been  less  cause  of  surprise.  But  that  an  argument 
"  good  for  nothing ;"  a  bit  of  "  miserable  sophis- 
try," should  put  Dr.  Hammond^  the  o  -^^avu,  the  very 
Gohath  of  "  the  church,"  into  such  a  fright  as 
nearly  to  turn  his  brain,  is  strange  indeed  ! 

But  should  the  episcopalian  be  worsted  in  the 
contest  about  the  scriptural  titles^  what  will  be  to 

another  order  for  which  three  is  no  scriptural  •warrant.  And  thus 
at  one  stroke  he  has  levelled  with  the  ground  the  whole  fabric  which 
the  other  episcopal  workmen  have  been  rearing.  For  if  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  not  Diocesan  bishops,  as  the  latter  affirm  and  the 
Dr. denies;  and  if  they  were  not  metropolitans,  as  the  Dr.  affirms, 
the  others  deny,  and  no  man  living  can  prove ;  then  one  of  their 
famous  three  orders  has  vanished  away.  Of  the  Dr's  supposition 
that  the  presbyters  were  instituted  before  the  writings  of  Ignatius' 
epistles,  the  reason  is,  that  they  must  be  iowwd -prior  to  that  date,  or 
else  poor  Ignatius  must  be  hung  up  for  forgery. — A  notable  man- 
oeuvre this  to  save  the  credit  of  the  principal  witness  for  the  Hie- 
rarchy. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  61 

us  the  advantage  of  victory,  or  to  him  the  injury 
of  defeat,  if  he  shall,  nevertheless,  estabhsh  his 
claim  by  scriptural /ac/5  ?  So  very  little,  that  the 
choice  between  victory  and  defeat,  on  the  first 
ground,  would  not  be  worth  a  straw  to  either. 
Abstractly  considered,  there  is  no  inconsistency 
between  our  own  doctrine  of  the  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  and  the  episcopal  doctrine  of  a 
superiour  grade.  For  certainly  it  does  not  follow, 
from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  that  because  bishop 
and  presbyter  mean  the  same  officer,  therefore 
there  is  no  other  officer  above  him.  But  as  the 
facts  standi  the  case  is  widely  different;  and  the 
value  of  the  argument  from  the  scriptural  titles 
lies  here,  that  this  superiour  order  must  be  found 
among  the  bishops  and  presbyters,  or  not  at  all ; 
because,  with  the  exception  of  deacons,  these  were 
the  only  ordinary  officers  in  the  apostolic  church. 
If,  then,  " bishop"  is  the  same  with  ''presbyter," 
the  superiour  or  prelatical  order  is  absolutely  un- 
known to  the  official  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Presbyters  and  deacons  we  meet  with  in 
abundance,  but  not  the  shadow  of  a  prelate  ever 
crosses  our  path.  Now,  that  official  titles  should 
be  conferred  upon  every  grade  of  officers  in  the 
church  except  the  highest;  that  this  officer  should 
have  no  place  in  the  official  catalogue ;  that  he 
should  wander  up  and  down  among  the  churches 
without  so  much  as  a  name  ;  that  while  his  subal- 
terns are  mentioned  particularly  and  repeatedly, 


62  Review. 

his  own  existence  and  dignity  should  be  a  matter 
of  mere  inference  from  his  acts,  so  far  surpasses 
all  the  powers  of  belief,  that  the  proof  of  his  exist- 
ence is  almost,  if  not  altogether,  impossible.  This 
leads  to  a  very  short  ^refutation  of  a  plea  on  which 
no  small  "  reliance"  has  been  placed  by  episco- 
pal writers,  from  Theodoret  down  to  the  Layman ; 
viz.  that  names  of  office,  like  other  words,  change 
their  signification  ;  and  become,  in  process  of  time, 
signs  of  ideas  quite  different  from  those  which 
they  originally  expressed. 

*'  In  Roman  history,"  says  the  Layman^  "  we  find  the  terra 
Jmperator  at  one  period  applied  to  designate  a  general  of  an 
army  ;  at  another,  a  magistrate  clothed  with  unlimited  civil 
and  military  authority.  Suppose  we  should  he  told  that  every 
general  of  an  army  was  Emperor  of  Rome  ;  and  that  the 
Emperor  of  Rome  was  merely  general  of  an  army;  what 
would  be  the  reply  1  That  the  term  Imperator  had  changed 
its  signification.  And  how  would  this  be  proved  ?  By  the 
Roman  history,  which  shows  us  that  the  Emperors  had  gene- 
rals under  them,  over  whom  they  exercised  authority.  Apply 
this  reasoning  to  the  case  under  consideration.  The  terms 
bishop,  presbyter,  are  used  promiscuously  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Therefore,  say  the  advocates  of  parity,  they  designa- 
ted the  same  offi,ce  in  the  ages  subsequent  to  the  apostles.  Is 
this  a  logical  conchision  ?  Surely  not.  Names  change  their 
signification.  Ecclesiastical  history  tells  us,  and  the  most 
learned  advocates  of  parity  have  admitted  the  fact,  that  the 
order  of  bishops  existed  in  the  church  as  distinct  from,  and 
superiour  to,  the  order  of  presbyters,  within  forty  or  fifty  years 
after  the  last  of  the  apostles.  The  bishops  then  had  presbyters 
under  them,  over  whom  they  exercised  authority.  The  offices 
were  distinct  from  the  beginning,  bishops  being  the  successors, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  63 

not  of  those  who  are  promiscuously  called  bishops^  presbyters ^ 
elders,  in  the  New  Testament,  but  of  the  apostles  themselves. 
Theodoret  tells  us  expressly,  "  that  in  the  process  of  time  those 
who  succeeded  to  the  apostohc  office,  left  the  name  of  apostle 
to  the  apostles,  strictly  so  called,  and  gave  the  name  of  bishop 
to  those  who  succeeded  to  the  apostolic  office."  No  argument, 
then,  can  be  founded  on  the  promiscuous  use  of  names."* 

We  hardly  expected  to  find  the  Layman  ad- 
vancing and  retracting  a  doctrine  in  the  compass 
of  a  single  page.  Yet,  assuredly,  if  bishops  are 
not  the  successors  of  those  who  are  promiscuous- 
ly called  bishops  and  presbyters,  then  these  names 
do  designate  a  precise  order  of  officers,  which  was 
the  very  thing  the  Layman  had  denied  in  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph.  That  names  change  their  sig- 
nification is  no  new  discovery.  But  can  this  either 
help  the  hierarchy,  or  hurt  the  advocates  of  pari- 
ty }  Things  are  before  names ;  and  the  changes 
in  things  before  changes  in  names.  If,  therefore,  a 
change  has  passed  upon  the  signification  of  official 
names  in  the  church,  since  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, that  alone  proves  to  a  demonstration,  that  a 
change  has  also  passed  upon  the  offices  them- 
selves; which  consequently  are  not  as  the  apostles 
left  them.  This  is  exactly  what  the  presbyterians 
maintain  ;  and  so  the  episcopal  plea  returns  with 
all  its  force  upon  its  authors,  and  fastens  upon  their 
hierarchy  the  charge  of  having  departed  from, 
and  corrupted,  the  order  which  Christ  appointed 
for  his  church,  and  which  the  death  of  his  apostles 

•   Layman,  No.  1.  Collec.  p.  8.  9. 


64  R 


evtew. 


sealed  up  for  permanency.  We  are  not  ignorant 
that  the  prelatical  writers  attribute  this  change  of 
names  to  a  very  different  cause.  The  celebrated 
Dr.  Bentley,  who,  in  critical  learning,  in  spirit, 
and  fire,  surpasses  the  most  of  them,  and  falls  short 
of  none,  thinks  it  was  the  modesty  of  the  prelates* 
which  induced  them  to  relinquish  the  name  of 
apostle,  and  to  assume  that  of  bishop.  It  is  hard 
to  estimate  the  degree  of  modesty  which  pervaded 
an  immensely  numerous  body  of  prelatesf  at  a 
period  of  which  we  have  scarcely  any  records. 
The  epistles  of  their  tutelar  saint,  Ignatius^  do  not 
abound  with  that  lovely  virtue  ;  and  all  the  world 
is  witness,  that  in  matters  relating  to  their  titles 
and  power,  the  order  has  been  entirely  innocent 
of  such  an  imputation  for  fourteen  centuries  at 
least.  The  apostles  themselves  decorated  the 
prelates,  we  are  told,  with  their  own  name  and  or- 
dinary dignity ;  they  exercised  the  authority  and 
wore  the  name,  during  the  life,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  apostles ;  and  after  their  death  retain- 
ed the  dignity,  but  renounced  the  appellation  out  of 
pure  modesty  !  Dr.  Hammond  has  more  regard  to 
consistency.  He  first  creates,  after  the  death  of 
the  apostles,  an  inferiour  order  of  clergy ;  and  as 
they  could  not  well  do  without  a  name,  he  very 
ingeniously  splits  up  the  designation  of  the  pre-ex- 

*  Phileleutherus  Lipsiensis,  p.  186. 

f  Dr.  Hammond  says  there  were  twenty-four^  besides  the  me- 
tropolitan, in  Judea  alone.     Annot.  on  Rev.  iv.  4. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  65 

isting  order,  giving  one  half  to  the  prelates,  and 
the  other  to  his  new  race  of  officers ! 

We  repeat,  that  change  of  names  pre-supposes 
change  of  things.  This  is  the  natural  and  neces- 
sary course  of  language.  The  contrary  would 
reverse  the  operations  of  the  human  mind.  Wlien 
the  change  was  introduced,  is  perfectly  immateri- 
al to  the  argument.  When  the  last  of  the  apos- 
tles breathed  out  his  spirit,  the  authority  of  the 
living  God  "  bound  up  the  testimony,  and  sealed 
the  law  among  his  disciples."  No  additions  nor 
diminutions  now.  And  whether  the  alteration  in 
the  government  of  the  church,  which  produced  a 
corresponding  alteration  in  the  names  of  her  of- 
ficers, took  place  "^  forty  years,"  or  forty  score  of 
years,  or  forty  hours  after  the  decease  of  the 
apostles,  is  not,  with  regard  to  the  rule  of  con- 
science, worth  the  trouble  of  a  question.  The 
advocates  of  parity,  do  not,  as  the  Layman  af- 
firms, infer  from  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  terms 
bishop  and  presbyter  in  the  New  Testament, 
"  that  they  designated  the  same  office  in  the  ages 
subsequent  to  the  apostles."  It  is  of  no  impor- 
tance to  them,  what  these  terms  signified  in  after 
ages.  They  prove  that  these  terms  signify  in  the 
New  Testament,  one  and  the  same  order  of  ru- 
lers ;  and  therefore  insist,  that,  as  the  rule  of  faith 
and  the  sense  of  the  scripture  are  immutable,  the 
same  terms  must  mean,  at  this  hour,  the  very  same 

thing  which  thev  meant  as  they  dropped  from  the 
Vol.  III.  '  9 


M  Review, 

pen  of  an  apostle.  This  is  enough  for  them,  as 
they  entertain  no  fear  of  being  unable  to  demon- 
strate that  the  scriptural  presbyters  are  not  dio- 
cesan bishops ;  and  are  the  only  ordinary  rulers 
which  the  New  Testament,  the  statute  book  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  recognizes  as  of  his  institution. 
The  subsequent  change  of  sense  in  the  scriptural 
titles,  as  we  have  more  than  once  observed,  proves 
decisively  a  change  in  the  original  order  of  the 
church  :  for  upon  no  other  principle  can  the  other 
change  be  explained.  The  Layman  has  been  pe- 
culiarly unhappy,  in  forcing  it  upon  the  notice  of 
his  readers.  He  has  only  turned  "  king's  evi- 
dence," against  his  party;  and,  in  attempting  to 
parry  a  Presbyterian  thrust,  has  unwittingly  smit- 
ten his  own  bishop  under  the  fifth  rib. 

'The  advocates  for  the  Hierarchy  labour  hard  to 
show  that  any  argument  from  official  names  to  the 
offices  designated  in  the  New  Testament,  is  in- 
conclusive. They  even  pronounce  it  "  good  for 
nothing."  Their  hope  is  to  render  the  scripture, 
thus  far,  neutral;  that  if  it  bear  no  testimony /or 
them,  it  shall  bear  none  against  them.  Whether 
they  have  succeeded  in  this  attempt  or  not,  we 
leave  to  the  dispassionate  judgment  of  the  reader, 
who,  with  a  desire  of  perceiving  and  embracing 
the  truth,  has  deliberately  considered  what  we 
have  already  written. 
We  now  follow  them  to  their  argument  from  the 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  67 

scriptural /«c/5,  upon  which  they  avowedly  rest  the 
weight  of  their  cause. 

The  first  of  these  facts  is  the  triple  order  of  the 
priesthood  among  the  Jews. 

"  We  find,"  says  the  Layman,  "  three  orders  of  officers  in 
the  Jewish  church  ;  and,  in  the  Christian,  there  have  always 
been  three  orders  answering  to  these.  What  Aaron,  his 
sons,  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  that  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons  are  in  the  Church.  Such  is  the  concurring  tes- 
timony of  the  primitive  fathers.  Take  that  of  St.  Jerome, 
whom  the  advocates  of  parity  are  fond  of  quoting-,  and  to 
whom,  therefore,  it  is  presumed,  they  will  not  object.  "  That 
we  may  hioiv  the  apostolical  economy  to  he  taken  from  the  pat- 
tern of  the  Old  Testament^  the  same  that  Aaron,  and  his  sons, 
and  the  Levites,  were  in  the  temple,  the  bishops,  presbyters, 
and  deacons,  are  in  the  church  of  Christ.^''  It  is  too  absurd 
to  attempt  to  turn  this  parallel  into  ridicule.  By  the  very 
same  mode  of  proceeding  you  may  destroy  the  whole  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  In  all  tliat  he  has  said  upon  this  point, 
the  miscellaneous  writer  has  contributed  much  more  to  the 
support  of  infidelity  than  of  any  other  cause. 

"  How  far,  then,  do  we  carry  tliis  argument? 

"  We  say,  simply,  that  the  law  being  figurative  of  the  gos- 
pel, in  all  its  important  parts,  the  Jewish  priesthood  was,  of 
course,  typical  of  the  Christian.  For  this  we  have  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  the  advocates  of 
parity  will  not  pretend  to  controvert  the  position.  Well,  then, 
the  priest  of  the  law  serving  as  "  the  example  and  shadinv  of 
heavenly  things,''^  the  circumstance  of  there  being  three  orders 
in  the  Jewish  ministry,  furnishes  a  strong  presumption  against 
the  doctrine  of  parity.  JVe  do  not  rely  upon  this  as  proof . 
We  merely  state  it  as  presumptive  evidence,  entitled  to  real 
attention.  It  gives  us,  we  contend,  possession  of  the  ground, 
and  throws  the  burden  of  proof  upon  our  opponents. 


68  Review, 

*'  Now,  what  says  the  miscellaneous  writer  in  reply  to  all 
this  1  He  talks  to  us  of  the  dress  of  the  Jewish  high  priests  ; 
asking,  very  sagaciously,  where  are  the  golden  ephod^  the 
breast  plate,  the  embroidered  girdle,  in  which  Aaron  and  his 
successors  were  clad.  I  call  upon  him  here  to  lay  his  hand 
upon  his  heart,  and  say,  whether  this  is  just  reasoning.  He 
knows  it  is  not.  What,  the  Jewish  priesthood  not  figurative 
of  the  Christian,  because  of  a  variety  in  dress  !  Is  it  neces- 
sary, in  order  that  one  thing  be  typical  of  another,  that  there 
.should  be  no  points  of  difference  between  them  1  No  more 
than  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  be  able  to  rise  to  the  per- 
fection of  the  character  of  Christ,  because  we  are  called  upon 
to  propose  him  as  the  model  for  imitation,  and  to  become  holy 
as  he  is  holy. 

*'  Is  the  miscellaneous  writer  aware  of  the  conclusion  to 
which  his  mode  of  reasoning  conducts  1  If  he  has  proved 
that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  not  typical  of  the  Christian, 
he  has  proved,  equally,  that  the  law  was  not  a  shadow  of  the 
gospel;  thus  destroying,  effectually,  all  connexion  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Is  there  no  difference  between 
our  Saviour  and  the  Paschal  Lamb  by  which  he  was  prefigur- 
ed 1  Abraham,  Moses,  Joshua,  David,  were  ail  types  of 
Christ;  but  were  there  no  points  of  distinction  between  thesa 
men  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world  1  Give  to  the  infidel  the 
weapons  of  this  writer,  and  how  easily  will  he  demolish,  with 
them,  the  whole  fabric  of  Christianity  !  If  the  points  of  dif- 
ference which  have  been  mentioned,  between  the  priesthood 
of  the  law,  and  of  the  gospel,  prove  that  the  one  was  not 
typical  of  the  other,  they  equally  prove  that  our  Saviour  was 
never  prefigured,  and  that  that  intimate  connexion,  between 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  which  has  been  so 
much  relied  upon  by  the  defenders  of  the  faith,  never  existed 
but  in  the  imagination  of  men.  But  I  feel  as  if  I  were  in- 
sulting the  understanding  of  the  reader,  in  dwelling  on  this 
point.     I  dismiss  it,  therefore,  especially  as  1  have  not  been 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  69 

able  to  bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  writer  had  any  thing 
more  in  view,  in  it,  than  a  flourish  of  rhetoric  to  attract  the 
vulofar  saze. 

"  The  Mosaic  dispensation,  then,  was  figurative  of  the 
Christian.  The  priesthood  of  the  law  was  typical  of  the 
priesthood  of  the  gospel.  The  former  consistnig  of  distinct 
and  subordinate  orders,  a  strong  presumption  thence  arises  in 
favour  of  that  distiiiction  and  sub-ordination  of  oflice  which, 
until  the  days  of  Calvin,  characterized,  without  a  suigle  ex- 
ception, the  Christian  church.  This  we  contend,  as  was  sjud 
before,  gives  us  possession  of  the  ground,  and  throws  the  bur- 
den of  proof  upon  the  advocates  of  parity. 

"  So  much  then  for  the  Jewish  priesthood.  It  was  a  sha- 
dow of  the  Christian  priesthood,  according  to  the  express 
declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul.  While  the  miscellaneous 
writer  does  not  venture  openly  to  deny  this,  but  rather  seems 
to  admit  it,  in  representing  the  whole  Jewish  system  as  typical, 
lie  endeavours,  nevertheless,  in  an  indirect  manner,  to  destroy 
all  relationship  between  the  priesthood  of  the  law  and  of  the 
gospel,  by  dwelling  on  the  variety  of  dress,  with  some  other 
subordinate  points  of  distinction.  Here  he  acts  with  his  usual 
imprudence  ;  tearing  up,  in  his  rage,  against  Episcopacy,  the 
very  foundation  of  the  Christian  faith."* 

The  same  analogy  is  thus  traced  by  Cyprian  : 

"  Why  should  not  the  orders  of  the  priesthood  under  the 
old  economy  be  supposed  to  typify  those  orders  that  were  to 
be  established  under  the  new?  Besides,  the  fact  is,  that  the 
Christian  dispensation  was  not  so  much  the  abolition,  as  it 
was  the  fulfilment  of  the  Jewish.  Christ  came,  not  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

"  It  is  true,  indeed,  we  possess  not  the  Jewish  form  of 
church  government.  We  possess  one,  however,  which  is  the 
consummation  of  the  Jewish — a  government  of  which   the 

*  No.  VIII.  Collec.  p.  110,  HI. 


70  Review, 

Jewish  was  an  imperfect  image.  We  possess  a  priesthood 
more  glorious  than  the  Levitical,  inasmuch  as  it  ministers  un- 
der a  more  glorious  dispensation — inasmuch  as  it  performs 
piu'er  and  more  exalted  offices — inasmuch  as,  in  its  nature 
and  offices,  it  is  the  glorious  substance  which  was  only  faintly 
shadowed  out  under  the  law. 

"  We  think,  therefore,  that  we  stand  on  substantial  ground 
when  we  maintain  that  we  derive  a  strong  argument  in  de- 
monstration of  the  divine  origin  of  our  form  of  church  govern- 
mmt,  by  showing  that  on  this  point  the  new  dispensation  is 
made  to  correspond  with  the  old  ;  is  made  the  true  substance 
of  which  the  old  was  the  shadow.  What  the  higli  priests,  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites,  were  in  the  temple,  such  are  the 
bishops,  the  presbyters,  and  deacons,  in  the  clnn*ch  of  Christ. 
This  is  the  uniform  language  of  the  fathers.  This  is  the 
conclusion  to  which  the  data  afforded  us  hy  the  apostles  inev- 
itably lead, 

*'  Such  was  the  model  of  church  government  instituted 
by  God  himself,  and  intended  to  be  transmitted  through  all 
ages,  with  modifications  that  should  vary,  no  doubt,  accord- 
ing to  the  varying  circumstances  of  mankind  ;  provided  these 
modifications  affected  not  its  great  and  cardinal  principles. 
We  say  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  the  image  of  the 
Christian.  We  say  that  it  is  sound  reasoning  to  deduce  the 
probable  form  of  the  substance  from  the  lineaments  of  it  that 
may  be  traced  in  its  image."* 

It  is  somewhat  curious  to  observe  the  rapid 
growth  of  this  argument  from  the  Jewish  to  the 
Episcopal  priesthood.  With  the  Layman  it  is  not 
proof ;  it  is  merely  '^ prcmmptive  evidence,  entitled 
to  real  attention."  By  the  time  it  has  travelled  to 
Gyprian,  it  is  a  "  strong  argument  in  demonstration 

•  No.  Vill.  Collec.  p.  115,  120. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  71 

of  the  divine  origin  of  their  form  of  church  govern- 
ment /'  and  it  places  them,  as  well  it  may,  "  on 
substantial  ground."  But  while  we  are  looking 
through  Cyprian's  magnifier,  at  this  Jewish  image 
of  the  "  Christian  priesthood,"  he  suddenly  shifts 
his  glass,  and  the  giant.  Demonstration,  dwindles 
down  again  into  the  dwarf,  Probabilitt.  "We 
say,"  adds  he,  in  the  next  paragraph,  "  that  it  is 
sound  reasoning  to  deduce  the  probable  form  of 
the  substance  from  the  hneaments  of  it  that  may 
be  traced  in  its  image."  One  hardly  knows  what 
to  do  with  writers  who  drive  their  argument  back- 
wards and  forwards  between  "proof"  and  "pre- 
sumption ;"  between  "  probability"  and  "  demon- 
stration ;"  as  if  a  rational  debate  were  a  game  at 
shuttlecock  !  But  they  are  not  without  excuse  ; 
for  to  one  who  can  see  the  tendency  of  this  argu- 
ment of  theirs,  it  is  pretty  clear  that  they  did  not 
know  what  to  do  with  themselves.  For  if,  as  they 
assure  us,  the  Jewish  was  a  type  of  the  Christian 
priesthood — if  the  former  was  "  a  shadow,"  and  a 
"faint  shadow,"  of  which  the  latter  is  the  true 
and  "  glorious  substance,"  then  there  must  be  a 
coincidence  between  the  essential  parts  of  the 
type,  and  the  essential  parts  of  the  thing  typified. 
But  according  to  the  divine  institution,  the  three 
orders  of  the  high  priest,  the  priests,  and  Levites, 
were  essential  to  the  legal  priesthood ;  and  if  this 
was  typical  of  the  evangehcal  '-'' priesthoods^''  there 
must  of  necessity  be  three  orders  in  that  also.    If 


72  Review. 

it  were  not  so,  the  type  would  not  tally  with  the 
antitype,  the  image  would  not  represent  its  object, 
and  the  end  of  the  typical  system  would  be  de- 
feated. A  body  with  a  head  would  as  soon  cast 
a  shadow  without  one,  as  a  type  of  three  orders 
represent  a  reality  of  two,  five,  or  seven.  This 
reasoning  supposes,  that  the  number  of  orders  en- 
ters into  the  nature  of  the  type  ;  and  on  the  same 
supposition  rests  the  Episcopal  argument.  For 
if  the  number  of  orders  in  the  Jewish  priesthood 
constituted  no  part  of  the  type,  it  is  extreme  weak- 
ness to  mistake  it  for  a  "  demonstration,"  or  even 
a  "  presumption,"  that  there  ought  to  be  three 
orders  in  the  thing  typified.  It  is  producing  your 
type  to  prove  that  the  thing  typified  possesses  a 
property  which  the  type  does  not  exhibit.  The 
fallacy  is  too  obvious  to  impose  upon  a  child. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  number  of  orders  in 
the  Jewish  priesthood  makes  a  part  of  the  type, 
and  the  Christian  ministry  is  the  thing  typified,  the 
conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  there  must  be  three 
orders  in  the  Christian  ministry.  If  such  a  typical 
relation  really  exists  between  the  ministry  of  the 
old  and  of  the  new  economy,  we  will  lay  down  our 
pen.  Our  cause  is  desperate  ;  the  hierarchy  has 
triumphed,  but  not  a  Protestant  hierarchy.  For 
according  to  all  the  laws  of  typical  analogy,  it  is 
not  more  necessary  that  there  be  three  orders  in 
the  "  Christian  priesthood,"  than  that  the  highest 
order   be  confined  to  a  single  person.     In  this 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  73 

point  the  Jewish  and  the  Episcopal  priesthood 
differ  essentially.  There  is  no  Ukeness  between  the 
type  and  the  antitype.  Who,  that  intended  to  in- 
stitute a  set  of  resemblances^  would  ever  dream  of 
appointing  a  numerous  body  of  Levites  to  repre- 
sent a  numerous  body  of  deacons ;  a  numerous 
body  of  priests  to  represent  another  numerous 
body  of  priests;  and  then  finish  by  putting  at 
the  head  of  his  system  a  single  high  priest^  to  re- 
present an  order  often  thousand  bishops  ?  Nay,  if 
the  Episcopal  argument  here  is  sound,  it  con- 
cludes much  more  forcibly  in  favour  of  the  Papal 
than  of  the  Protestant  hierarchy.  The  former 
preserves,  in  her  single  pontiff,  an  essential  feature 
of  the  type,  which  the  latter,  by  her  order  of 
bishops,  has  perfectly  obliterated.  Thus,  then, 
the  case  stands  ;  if  the  typical  character  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood  does  not  include  its  orders,  the 
Episcopal  inference  from  them  in  behalf  of  the 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  is  palpably  false  :  If 
it  does,  while  the  Presbyterian  perishes,  the  church 
of  Rome  gains  much  more  than  the  church  of 
England. 

But  this  notion  of  the  typical  property  of  the 
grades  of  priesthood  in  the  Jewish  church,  is  an 
Episcopal  fiction.  It  has  no  real  existence.  The 
decisive  proof  is,  that  the  Levitical  priesthood 
typified  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  there 
could  be  no  place  for  different  orders.     Its  several 

grades,  as  such,  had  nothing  to  do  with  its  typical 
Vol.  III.  10 


74  R 


evtew. 


character  and  functions.     These  lay  hi  another 
direction  altogether. 

We,  therefore,  advance  a  step  higher,  and  deny 
the  whole  doctrine  of  the  hierarchy,  in  so  far  as  it 
makes  the  Jewish  priesthood  a  type  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry.  The  Layman  has  asserted  that 
"  the  law  being  figurative  of  the  gospel,  in  all  its 
important  parts,  the  J ewish priesthood  was ^  of  course^ 
typical  of  the  Christian^*  To  the  same  purpose 
Cyprian,  "  We  say  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  ivas  the 
image  of  the  Christian.^-'f  These  are  the  asser- 
tions ;  now  for  the  proof  Cyprian  tells  us,  that  it 
"  is  the  uniform  language  of  the  fathers — the  con- 
clusion to  which  the  data  afforded  us  by  the  apos- 
tles inevitably  lead."  The  Layman,  that  "  for  this," 
viz.  that  the  "  Jewish  priesthood  was  typical  of 
the  Christian,  we  have  the  express  declaration  of  the 
apostle  Paul^^^  and  that  "  the  advocates  of  parity 
will  not  pretend  to  controvert  the  position."  But 
they  certainly  do,  sir;  confident  as  you  are  of  the 
negative.  They  not  only  venture  to  controvert, 
but  engage  to  refute,  your  position.  They  main- 
tain that  the  apostles  have  not  afforded  any  data 
which  can  lead  to  such  a  conclusion.  Cyprian 
has  mentioned  none  :  and  the  only  passage  which 
the  other  has  quoted  in  his  own  justification,  he 
has  misunderstood  and  misapphed.  The  consid- 
erations which  make  against  them,  are  numerous 
and  weighty. 
♦  No.  VIII.  Collec,  p.  310.  f  No.  IV.  ColUc.  p.  320. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  75 

1.  The  scriptures  no  where  draw  a  parallel  or 
comparison  between  the  rank  and  functions  of  the 
ministry  of  the  Old  Testament  and  that  of  the 
New.  And  if  the  former  was  designed  to  be  the 
model  of  the  latter,  the  omission  is  altogether  un- 
accountable. They  neither  say  nor  insinuate  that 
the  priests  under  the  law  were  a  type  and  image 
of  which  the  truth  and  substance  are  to  be  sought 
in  the  ministers  of  the  new  dispensation.  The 
nature  and  use  of  the  legal  institutions  are  ex- 
plained with  minute  accuracy  by  the  Apostle  Paul, 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  He  treats  them  as 
types  of  "Jesus  Christ,  and  all  the  effects  of  his 
mediation  in  grace  and  glory ;"  but  of  their  typi- 
cal relation  to  the  Christian  ministry,  not  a  single 
syllable. 

Here  the  Layman  interrupts  us  with  "  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul."  Let  us 
have  it.  "  The  priests  of  the  law  serving  as  '  the 
example  and  shadow  of  heavenly  things ^^  the  circum- 
stance of  there  being  three  orders  in  the  Jewish 
ministry  furnishes  a  strong  presumption  against 
the  doctrine  of  parity."^  The  "  express  declara- 
tion" of  the  apostle,  it  seems  is,  that  ^'- the  priests  of 
the  law  serve  as  the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly 
things  ;"t  representing  his  meaning  to  be,  that  the 
priests  of  the  law  are  that  example  and  shadow. 
We  have  a  small  objection  to  this  assertion  of  the 
Layman ;  and  that  is,  that,  like  Cyprian's  story  of 
•  No.  viii.  CoUcc.  p.  no.  t  p.  111. 


76  Review, 

bishop  Epaphroditus,  it  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
the  apostle  a  speech  which  he  never  uttered. 
There  is  neither  in  the  passage  quoted,  nor  in  any 
other  passage  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  nor 
in  the  whole  New  Testament,  such  a  declaration 
as  the  Layman  ascribes  to  Paul.  He  has  either 
quoted  from  memory,  which  we  suspect  to  be  the 
fact,  and  so  has  forgotten  what  the  apostle  said ; 
or  else  is  as  unlucky  in  his  criticism  as  his  poor 
friend  Cyprian.  The  apostle  says,  "  the  priests 
who  offer  gifts  according  to  the  laio^serve^''  not  AS, 
but  "  UNTO  the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly 
things,''''  It  was  not  the  priests,,  but  the  things  to 
which  they  ministered^  that  constituted  the  "  exam- 
ple and  shadow."  This  is  obvious  upon  the  first 
inspection  of  the  text.^  The  apostle  is  discoursing 
of  the  tabernacle,  its  furniture  and  service.  These 
were  the  "example  and  shadow."  The  substance, 
the  "  heavenly  things,"  was  Christ  Jesus,  his  sa- 
crifice and  intercession,  with  all  their  blessed  ef- 
fects in  the  salvation  of  men.  This  is  the  apostle's 
own  interpretation.  For  these  same  priests  whom 
he  here  describes  as  "  serving  unto  the  example 
and  shadow  of  heavenly  things,"  he  elsewhere  de- 
scribes as  "  serving  the  tabernacle.'''''\  The  taberna- 
cle, therefore,  not  the  priests,  were  the  "  example 
and  shadow  of  the  heavenly  things."     And  that 

*  OiTjvcj  xjiiahr/i^oLTi  xa»  tfxja  Xar^suouo'j  rwv  £';r'ouc'aviwv.    Heb. 
viii,  5. 

f  Oi  r-fi  <!xr,vj)  Xclt^svovtss  .  Heb.  xiii.  10. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  11 

this  is  the  apostle's  meaning,  is  "  yet  far  more 
evident."  For  in  the  9th  chapter,  after  detailing 
the  construction,  the  furniture,  and  the  service  of 
the  tabernacle,"^  he  says  that  this  tabernacle,  thus 
framed,  equipped,  and  attended,  was  a  figure  for 
the  time  then  present.-\  "  But  Christ  being  come," 
proceeds  the  apostle,  "  an  high  priest  of  good 
things  to  come,  by  {through^  a  greater  and  more 
perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is 
to  say,  not  of  this  building  :  neither  by  the  blood 
of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood,  he  en- 
tered in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained 
eternal  redemption  for  us." 

This  "  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,"  is 
the  human  nature  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  virtue  of 
the  once  offering  up  of  which  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin, 
he  entered  into  heaven  itself  for  us.  It  is  this  blood 
of  his,  typified  by  the  "  blood  of  goats  and  calves," 
which  "  purges  our  conscience  from  dead  works 
to  serve  the  living  God."  These  are  the  "  good 
things  to  come ;"  these  "  the  heavenly  things,"  of 
which  the  first  tabernacle  was  the  "  example  and 
shadow."  The  "  Christian  priesthood,"  as  it  is 
improperly  and  offensively  termed,  does  not  even 
appear  in  the  comparison.  If  the  Layman  has 
discovered  it  among  the  "  heavenly  things,"  his 
penetration  is  acute  indeed.  Instead,  therefore, 
of  producing  an  "  express  declaration"  of  the 
apostle  to  support  his  doctrine,  he  has  only  put  a 
*  Heb.  xiii.  v.  2—7.  t  v.  9. 


78  Review, 

text  to  needless  torture ;  for  his  witness,  like  Cy- 
prian's in  the  affair  of  Epaphroditus,  knows  no- 
thing of  the  matter. 

It  is  further  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament never  applies  to  the  Christian  ministry 
those  terms  which  express  the  office  of  a  priest, 
and  which  were  invariably  applied  to  the  priest- 
hood of  the  law.  Jesus  Christ  is  called  a  priest, 
an  high  priest,  a  great  high  priest ;  but  not  his 
ministers.  On  the  principle  that  he  is  the  true 
priest  whom  the  priests  of  the  law  prefigured,  this 
is  perfectly  natural.  But  is  it  not  inconceivable, 
that  the  appropriate  title  of  the  priesthood  should 
be  given  to  the  typical  priests ;  to  the  form — to 
the  shadow — and  uniformly  withheld  from  the 
priests  who  are  the  substance  represented  by 
them  }  Why  this  change  of  language  ?  If  the 
priestly  character,  office,  and  work,  have  been 
fulfilled  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  if  he,  as  the 
sole  priest  of  the  church,  is  now  appearing  in 
heaven  for  us,  the  reason  of  the  change  is  as  clear 
as  noon  day.  There  are  no  more  official  priests, 
there  is  no  more  "  priesthood,"  in  the  church  upon 
earth ;  and  therefore  the  name  is  laid  aside.  But 
if  there  are  such  priests  and  priesthood,  and  if 
these  are  the  very  substance  of  which  the  old 
priests  were  but  a  shadow,  it  will  baffle  all  the  in- 
genuity of  the  hierarchy  to  the  end  of  time,  to  as- 
sign even  a  tolerable  reason  why  the  spirit  of  wis- 
dom has  refused  them  their  official  designation, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  79 

and  has  altered  the  whole  official  style  of  the 
church !  The  ministry  under  the  new  dispensation 
is  represented  as  the  ascension  gift  of  our  glori- 
fied master.*  Ordinary  and  extraordinary  officers 
are  enumerated,  but  not  a  word  of  the  Jewish  or- 
ders being  a  type  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Not 
a  word  of  priests  or  priesthood,  of  altars,  of  sacri- 
fices, or  any  of  the  sacrificial  language  to  which 
the  hierarchy  is  so  devoted.  She  has  thought  fit, 
and  she  shall  answer  for  it,  to  bring  back  and  affix 
to  her  clergy  and  their  functions ;  to  her  sacra- 
mental table  and  its  elements,  a  set  of  denomina- 
tions which  the  Holy  Ghost  not  only  never  annex- 
ed to  the  ministry  and  ordinances  of  his  own 
creation ;  but  which  he  had,  with  pointed  care, 
excluded  from  the  New  Testament ! 

Our  assertion,  therefore,  stands  firm,  that  the 
apostolic  writings  furnish  no  data  which  can  lead 
us  to  the  "  conclusion"  of  Cyprian,  or  the  "  posi- 
tion" of  the  Layman.  Whence,  we  again  ask, 
whence  this  silence  ?  Why  is  so  important  a  pro- 
perty of  the  typical  priesthood  overlooked  ?  Is  not 
the  "  glorious  substance,"  of  which  it  was  only  a 
"  faint  shadow,"  so  much  as  worthy  of  notice  ?  and 
that  too  in  a  set  treatise  of  the  legal  shadows  and 
their  corresponding  substances  ?  It  is  indisputable, 
their  own  words  evince  it,  that  if  the  Layman  and 
Cyprian,  and  their  several  coadjutors,  had  prepar- 
ed such  a  treatise ;  whatever  place  they  might 
*  Eph.  iv.  11. 


80  R 


evtew. 


have  allotted  to  the  "  apostle  and  high  priest  of 
our  profession,"  the  dignity  of  the  episcopal  priest- 
hood would  have  filled  up  one  of  their  most  ani- 
mated chapters.  Having  found  so  much  of  their 
own  image  where  Paul  found  so  little,  it  is  but 
right  to  supply  his  deficiencies,  and  to  adminis- 
ter a  dehcate  rebuke  for  his  negligent  exposition  ! 

2.  A  comparison  of  the  Levitical  with  the  Epis- 
copal priesthood,  will  demonstrate  that  the  for- 
mer was  not,  and  could  not  be,  a  type  of  the  latter. 
The  grades  are  ranged  thus : 

Type^  or  Shadow^  Antitype^  or  Substance, 

High-priest,     -     ...     -     Bishop, 
Priest,  -     -     -     -     Priest, 

Levite,  -     -     .     -     Deacon. 

Now  in  what  do  they  resemble  each  other  ? 

Did  the  high  priest  ordain  the  priests  ?  No.  Did 
he  confirm  the  people  ?  No.  Had  he  the  exclusive 
right  of  government  ?  No.  On  the  other  hand ; 
Do  the  bishops  discharge  any  duty  analogous  to 
the  offering  up  of  the  yearly  sacrifice  on  the  great 
day  of  expiation  }  No.  Have  they  the  pecuhar 
privilege  of  entering  into  the  immediate  presence 
of  God  ?  No.  Is  the  oracle  of  God  attached  to 
their  persons  }  or  iiave  they  any  special  right  of 
de9laring  the  divine  will  }  No.  He  who  has  saga- 
city enough  to  detect  in  the  appropriate  functions 
of  the  high  priest  any  thing  that  deserves  to  be 
called  a  type  of  the  functions  appropriated  to  a 
Christian  bishop,  can  never  be  at  a  loss  for  type 


Kssays  on  Episcopacy,  81 

and  antitype,  so  long  as  any  two  objects  remain 
within  the  bible  or  without  it.  Their  prerogatives 
and  offices  are  so  absolutely  dissimilar,  that  to 
make  the  one  an  image  of  the  other,  is  to  pour 
overwhelming  ridicule  upon  the  whole  system  of 
typical  ordinances.  The  success  will  not  be  much 
better,  if  we  go  down  to  the  second  and  third 
grades  of  the  priesthood.  If  the  reader  has  an 
hour  which  he  cannot  employ  more  profitably,  he 
may  throw  it  away  in  hunting  for  likenesses  be- 
tween the  priests  of  the  law  and  of  the  gospel ; 
between  the  Levite  and  the  Episcopal  deacon. 
We  have  enough  of  it.  Our  argument  is  this,  that 
as  typical  officers  must  have  typical  functions,  if 
the  functions  of  the  legal  priesthood  did  not  typify 
those  of  the  Christian,  then  was  not  the  one 
priesthood  a  type  of  the  other.  To  insist  upon 
a  typical  meaning  in  the  number  of  orders,  and  to 
discard  as  mere  circumstances,  the  respective 
functions  of  those  orders,  is  a  distinction  which 
reason  laughs  at,  and  a  sound  head  will  hardly 
adopt. 

3.  As  typical  officers  and  typical  functions  are 
correlate  ideas,  the  former  necessarily  implying 
the  latter,  we  remark,  that  if  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood prefigured  the  Christian  ministry,  as  a  type 
its  antitype,  then  it  follows,  that  we  have  in  the 
functions  of  the  priesthood  now,  the  substance  of 
that  which  in  the  functions  of  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood was  only  a  type.     That  is,  the  priests  now 

Vol.  III.  1 1 


82  Review, 

offer  up  the  true  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  are  our  me- 
diators and  intercessors  with  God,  upon  the  foot- 
ing of  their  sacrifice.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
the  priestly  ofliice  of  old  was  typical ;  and  its  sac- 
rifices typical.  Whoever,  then,  is  the  real  priest, 
offers  the  real  sacrifice.  But  he  is  the  real  priest 
of  whom  the  priests  of  the  law  were  a  type.  And 
the  priests  of  the  law  were  a  type,  says  the  hie- 
rarchy, of  our  priesthood  :  therefore  the  priest- 
hood of  the  hierarchy  offer  up  the  true  sacrifice 
for  sin!  There  is  no  getting  rid  of  the  conclusion. 
The  apostle  Paul  reasons  in  the  same  manner, 
from  the  typical  relation  of  the  old  priests  and  their 
sacrifices  to  Jesus  Christ  and  his  sacrifice.  He 
insists,  that  because  they  were  shadows  and  Christ 
the  substance,  therefore  Christ,  the  true  priest, 
has  put  away  sin  by  the  offering  up  of  himself  as 
the  true  sacrifice.  We  see  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  hierarchy  is  irreconcileable  with  that  of  the 
apostle.  He  teaches  that  the  Levitical  priest- 
hood and  their  offerings  were  typical  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  offerings.  The  hierarchy  teaches 
that  the  Levitical  priesthood  typified  the  evaugel- 
ical  ministry.  Both  cannot  be  true.  The  same 
type  cannot  signify  a  single  high  priest  who  offer- 
ed up  a  true  and  proper  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  an 
order  of  priests  who  offer  up  no  such  sacrifice. 
If  Christ  is  the  substance  of  the  legal  priesthood, 
the  Episcopal  hierarchy  is  not.  If  that  hierarchy 
is  the  substance,  Jesus  Christ  is  not.   The  reader 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  83 

has  his  choice,  whether  he  will  side  with  the 
hierarchy  at  the  expense  of  the  apostle,  or  with 
the  apostle  at  the  expense  of  the  hierarchy  !  Whe- 
ther he  will  look  for  the  substance  of  the  Levitical 
priesthood  in  the  Son  of  God  and  his  mediatorial 
work,  or  in  the  administration  of  the  Episcopal 
clergy  !  Whether — But  we  check  ourselves.  A 
stranger  instance  of  infatuated  zeal  has  rarely  oc- 
curred. The  genius  of  the  Old  Testament  types 
shall  be  perverted;  their  beautiful  correspondence 
with  their  objects  shall  be  marred ;  the  principle 
of  a  whole  book  of  the  New  Testament,  (the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,)  shall  be  set  aside;  but  an 
argument,  though  merely  a  presumptive  one,  for 
the  hierarchy,  shall  not  be  given  up ! 

The  only  escape  from  this  dilemma  appears  to 
be  through  a  distinction  between  the  particular 
character  of  the  Old  Testament  priests  as  such, 
and  their  general  character  as  ministers  of  reli- 
gion. It  may  be  yielded,  that  in  the  former  they 
were  types  of  Christ;  and  maintained  that  in  the 
latter  they  were  types  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
The  distinction  is  of  no  avail;  and  its  best  effect 
is  to  protract  the  death  of  the  Episcopal  plea  for 
a  minute  longer.  If  both  their  particular  charac- 
ter as  priests,  and  their  general  character  as  min- 
isters of  religion  were  typical,  they  were  nothing 
but  types.  The  worship  which  they  offered  up 
was  typical  worship ;  their  prayers  were  typical 
prayers;  their  instructions  to  the  people,  typical 


84  Revi 


etc. 


instructions.  The  church  in  which  they  minister- 
ed was  a  typical  church.  All  was  type.  There 
was  no  reality.  But  this  is  absurd.  God  had  as 
real  a  church,  and  dispensed  as  real  blessings,  by 
real  ministers  before,  as  since,  the  evangelical 
dispensation.  Whatever  typical  ordinances  might 
be  set  up,  the  church  itself  never  was  a  type.  It 
is  a  ivhole,  and  one  part  of  a  whole  cannot  be  a 
type  of  another  part.  And  as  there  were  real 
ministers  in  a  real  church  under  the  law,  if  you 
will  have  them  to  be  types  in  their  general  cha- 
racter, you  make  the  ministry  of  the  church  at  one 
period  and  in  one  form,  the  type  of  her  ministry 
at  another  period  under  another  form.  This  is  a 
contradiction.  For  the  same  persons  could  not 
be,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  exercise  of  the 
same  functions,  under  the  same  relations,  both 
shadow  and  substance.  It  destroys  also  the  na- 
ture of  the  church  of  God;  giving  us  all  type  be- 
fore the  new  dispensation,  and  all  substance  after 
it.  So  that  in  fact,  according  to  the  scheme  we 
are  considering,  there  was  no  such  thing  as  a 
church  at  all  under  the  law,  but  only  the  shadow 
of  a  church.  We  have  one  step  further  in  this 
typical  climax.  The  sinners  under  the  law  were 
only  typical  sinners  ;  the  saints  only  typical  saints ; 
the  salvation  of  the  soul  only  a  typical  salvation ; 
and  for  aught  we  can  see,  the  God  of  salvation 
only  a  typical  God  ! 

View  it  in  any  light  you  choose  :  The  doctrine 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  85 

of  the  Layman,  Cyprian,  &c.  concerning  the  Old 
Testament  types,  is  inconsistent  with  itself;  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  with  all  the 
known  relations  of  type  and  antitype.  Yet  while 
they  are  spreading  this  confusion  ;  while  they  are 
displaying  the  most  absolute  want  of  acquaintance 
with  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  they 
have  the  assurance  to  tell  us  that  if  we  "  have 
proved  that  the  Jewish  priesthood  was  not  typical 
of  the  Christian,  we  have  proved  equally  that  the 
law  was  not  a  shadow  of  the  gospel:  thus  destroy- 
ing effectually,  all  connexion  between  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New."*  It  seems,  then,  that 
although  we  have  Christ  the  true  priest  and  true 
sacrifice ;  and  the  effects  of  his  mediation  in 
pardoning  sin,  in  purging  the  conscience,  and  in 
presenting  an  efficacious  intercession  before  God 
in  the  highest  heavens — we  have  nothing  to  the 
purpose ;  we  are  "  destroying  the  whole  Christian 
dispensation ;"  we  are  doing  "  much  more  to  the 
support  of  infidelity,  than  of  any  other  cause  ;"t 
we  are  tearing  up  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Christian  faith" — Why  ? — because  we  will  not  ad- 
mit the  episcopal  clergy  to  be  the  substance  of 
which  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  only  the 
shadow!  It  is  amazing,  it  is  humiliating,  that 
men  who  have  need  that  one  teach  them  which  be  the 
first  jninciples  of  the  oracles  of  God^  should  talk  so 
confidently.     Nay,  in  the  very  act  of  sanctioning 

*  Layman,  No.  viii.  p.  110.  f  P.  110. 


86  Review. 

all  this  misconception,  misconstruction,  and  wrest- 
ing of  the  scriptures,  Mr.  H.  has  permitted  him- 
self to  ask  Dr.  Linn,  whether  he  is  "  really  igno- 
rant of  the  nature  of  the  types  of  scripture,"  or 
whether  he  is  "  guilty  of  wilful  misrepresentation  ?"* 
Such  questions  as  these  ought  not  to  have  been 
put  by  Mr.  Hobart. 

So  much  for  the  first  fact  to  which  the  dispu- 
tants for  the  hierarchy  have  appealed. 

Their  second  fact,  is  the  triple  order  of  the 
"  priesthood"  during  our  Lord's  personal  converse 
with  men. 

*'  Whilst  our  Saviour  remained  on  earth,"  (says  Cyprian,) 
*'  he,  of  course,  held  supreme  authority  in  his  church.  The 
twelve  were  appointed  by  him  as  his  subordinate  officers.  The 
seventy  disciples  constituted  a  still  lower  order.  There  exist- 
ed, then,  in  the  church  of  Christ,  at  this  time,  three  distinct 
grades  of  ministers.  When  our  Lord  ascended  into  heaven, 
when  he  breathed  upon  the  twelve,  and  said,  "  As  my  father 
hath  sent  me,  so  send  I  you,"  he  transmitted  to  them  the  same 
authority  which  he  himself  had  retained  during  his  continuance 
amongst  them  :  the  twelve  commissioned  their  presbyters  and 
deacons  to  aid  them  in  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment. Before  their  death  they  constituted  an  order  of 
ministers  to  whom  they  conveyed  that  supreme  authority  in 
the  church  which  was  lodged  in  their  hands  during  their 
lives."t 

Thus,  also,  the  Layman  : 

"  Jesus  Christ  commissioned  twelve,  and  the  seventy ;  but 
he  gave  them  no  authority  to  commission  others.  The  high 
power  of  ordination  was  exercised  by  himself  alone.     Here, 

*  Note  to  Colhc.  p.  37.  f  Cyprian,  No.  II.  ColUc.  p.  62. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  87 

then,  were  three  orders;  our  Saviour^  the  great  head  of  the 
church  ;  the  twelve  apostles  ;  and  the  seventy  disciplesy^ 

We  should  be  much  entertained,  and  possibly 
edified,  by  the  history  of  the  three  orders  and  their 
succession,  as  compiled  by  the  Layman  and  his 
learned  colleague,  were  we  not  disturbed  by  some 
difficulties  which  we  cannot  well  remove. 

Our  first  difficulty,  as  to  this  second  stage  of  the 
triple  order,  relates  to  John  the  Baptist.  He  was 
certainly  the  Redeemer's  messenger,  and  exercis- 
ed a  contemporary  ministry.  Why  is  he  left  out 
of  the  list  ?  His  extraordinary  functions  cannot 
be  the  reason ;  for  those  of  his  master  were  more 
extraordinary  than  his  own.  But  he  was  neither 
the  Christ,  nor  one  of  the  twelve,  nor  one  of  the 
seventy.  If  you  take  him  into  the  catalogue,  you 
hsivefoii7'  orders;  if  you  leave  him  out,  you  must 
leave  out  his  master  likewise ;  and  then  you  will 
have  but  two.  In  either  way  the  history  of  the 
hierarchy  sticks. 

Our  next  difficulty  relates  to  the  co-existence  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  priesthoods.  The  church 
of  God  was  either  organized  under  the  Christian 
form,  during  our  Lord's  continuance  upon  earth, 
or  not.  If  not,  there  was  no  Christian  priesthood, 
and  consequently  no  orders  of  priesthood.  If  she 
was,  then  did  she  actually  subsist  under  two  forms 
at  the  same  time.  For  it  is  certain  that  the  legal 
form  remained,  till  the  offisring  up  of  the  "  word 

*  Layman,  No.  IX  Collec  p.  153. 


88  Review. 

made  flesh,"  in  sacrifice  for  sin.  Moreover,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  indubitably  the  head  of  the 
church  under  her  Jewish  form.  She  was,  with  her 
whole  system  of  worship,  his  property.  He  came 
vnio  his  oivn.^  He  was  in  the  temple,  the  lord  of 
the  temple,  and  acted  as  such.  Now  if  his  per- 
sonal presence  as  the  head  of  the  church  made 
him  an  order  in  her  evangelical  ministry,  that  same 
presence  in  the  Jewish  church  made  him  one  of 
the  orders  of  the  Jewish  priesthood.  Admit  this, 
and  we  are  troubled  with  an  additional  order  in 
that  priesthood  ;  deny  it,  and  we  have  lost  one  of 
the  Christian  orders.  The  former  compels  us  to 
take  four,  the  latter  allows  us  but  two.  Scylla  and 
Charybdis  over  again  for  the  history  of  the  three 
orders ! 

Our  third  difficulty  relates  to  the  principle  upon 
which,  in  the  present  case,  the  triple  order  is 
founded.  The  Layman  and  Cyprian,  as  a  shoal 
of  other  writers  had  done  before  them,  work  up 
the  apostles  and  seventy  disciples  into  two  orders 
of  priesthood ;  and  that  their  canonical  number 
might  not  be  wanting,  they  complete  it  by  adding 
the  Redeemer  himself ! 

Now,  we  had  always  thought,  with  the  apostle 
Paul,  that  Christ  was  faithful  as  a  son  over  his  own 
house:  that  the  church  itself  is  the  house;  and  that 
all  the  ministers  of  the  church  are  his  servants.  It 
was  really  a  stroke  worthy  of  "  giants  in  theology," 

*  Eig  ra  lAlA  ijX^s.    John  i.  11. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  89 

to  make  the  Lord  himself  one  of  the  orders  among 
his  own  servants  !  And  seeing  that  his  assent  into 
heaven  never  stript  him  of  any  relation  to  his 
church,  and  that  he  actually  exercises  the  priestly 
office  at  this  moment  before  the  throne  of  God, 
the  consequence  is,  either  that  there  arenow/owr 
orders  of  the  priesthood,  or  that  there  were  but 
tico  in  the  days  of  his  flesh.  The  same  perplexity 
stares  the  hierarchy  once  more  in  the  face  ;  and  if 
she  will  have  three  orders,  neither  more  nor  less, 
she  must  depose  her  master  in  order  to  make 
way  for  her  bishops  ! 

Our  fourth  difficulty  relates  to  the  nature  of  the 
succession. 

Christ  transmitted  to  the  twelve,  says  Cyprian, 
"  the  same  authority  w^hich  he  himself  had  retained 
during  his  continuance  among  them;  and  the 
twelve  commissioned  their  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons to  aid  them  in  the  administration  of  ecclesi- 
astical government,''  and  "  before  their  death, 
constituted  an  order  of  ministers  to  whom  they 
conveyed"  their  own  ''  supreme  authority.''"' 

Some  how  or  other,  we  have  lost  the  seventy 
disciples  in  this  arrangement.  Probably  they  were 
promoted  to  bishopricks.  However  that  be,  the 
descent  of  "  power"  is  very  distinctly  stated. 
Christ  conveyed  the  same  authority  which  he  him^ 
self  exercised  to  the  apostles ;  and  the  apostles 
conveyed  the  *same  authority  which  they  exercised 
to  the  order  which  they  constituted  before  th^ir 

Vol.  m.  12 


90  Review. 

death ;  that  is,  the  order  of  bishops.  So,  then, 
the  order  of  bishops  have  now  the  very  same  au- 
thority which  Christ  himself  had  when  he  was  upon 
earth !  But  Christ  was  the  "  lord  and  master"  of 
the  church  ;  so  are  the  Bishops ;  and  for  that  rea- 
son are  very  properly  styled,  in  some  places,  Lorc/^ 
bishops  !  Christ  was  \hQ proprietor  of  the  church — 
so  are  the  bishops,  no  doubt !  Christ  had  autho- 
rity to  appoint  sacraments  and  to  mould  the  go- 
vernment of  his  church  according  to  his  pleasure  : 
so  have  the  bishops,  beyond  controversy !  It  seems, 
then,  that  they  are  the  successours  not  so  much  of 
the  apostles,  as  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself: 
that  he  is  gone  away  to  heaven,  and  has  deputed 
to  them  in  solidmn^  by  the  lump,  the  whole  autho- 
rity which  he  himself  possessed  !  A  fair  inheritance 
we  own ;  and  very  goodly  heirs !  Having  estab- 
lished this  point,  we  wonder  that  they  put  them- 
selves to  any  further  trouble  in  making  out  their 
title  to  "the  pre-eminence  !"  There  is  a  short  cut 
to  the  resolution  ofevery  difficulty  about  the  affairs 
of  the  church,  and  every  thing  else.  Go  to  the 
bishops  !  Christ  had  unhmited  authority  over  the 
conscience,  and  they  have  succeeded  him.  Eccle- 
siastical history  is  not  barren  of  instances  wherein 
they  have  acted  up  to  the  spirit  of  their  trust.  Eng- 
land can  witness,  that,  in  one  day,  they  threw 
upon  the  mercy  of  the  persecutor,  and  the  comforts 
of  famine,  two  thousand  of  the  best  men  and  the 
most  glorious  ministers  of  the  gospel,  that  ever 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  91 

blessed  a  nation  or  adorned  a  church :  and  a  great 
proportion  of  them  for  not  submitting  to  imposi- 
tions upon  conscience  for  which  the  warrant  of 
the  divine  word  was  not  so  much  as  pretended. 
But  the  Episcopal  W' arrant  was  perfectly  .clear : 
and  the  Puritans  were  righteously  deprived  for 
not  bowing  to  the  successours  of  Jesus  Christ! 
"Come  set  us  the  five  mile  act  to  music.'*^  Let 
us  compensate  the  fast  of  the  30th  January  for 
the  martyrdom  of  Charles,!  with  the  festival  of 
St.  Bartholomew's,!  for  the  judgment  of  the  Pres- 
byterians ! 

*  An  act  of  17th  Charles  II.  by  %vhich  nou-conformist  ministers 
were  prohibited,  unless  in  crossing  the  road,  to  come  or  be,  on  any 
pretence  whatever,  after  March  24lh,  16G.5,  within /I'e  miles  oi  any 
city,  town  corporate,  or  borough  that  sent  burgesses  to  parliament; 
or  within  five  miles  of  any  parish,  town,  or  place,  wherein  they 
had,  since  the  act  of  oblivion,  been  parson,  vicar,  or  lecturer,  &c.; 
or  where  they  had  preached  in  any  conventicle. 

f  Charles  I.  of  tyrannical  memory,  was  beheaded  on  the  30th 
January,  1649.  He  called  himself,  and  was  called  by  some  others, 
a  martyr.  The  anniversary  of  his  martyrdom  has  afforded  the 
"High  church  clergy  many  fine  opportunities  for  displaying  their 
zeal  for  "  the  church,"  and  mourning  over  her  calamities. 

t  The  famous  ^' Act  for  the  uniformity  of  public  prayers  and 
administration  of  sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies,  &,'C.,iti 
the  church  of  England  ;■'  which  received  the  royal  assent  on  the 
19th  May,  1662,  and  took  effect  on  the  24th  of  August  following, 
being  St.  Bartholomew's  day.  Assent  and  consent  to  its  provisions 
were  to  be  declared  by  that  day,  on  pain  of  deprivation  of  their 
livings,  if  the  offenders  were  in  the  ministry;  and  if  schoolmasters 
or  tutors,  three  months  imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  five  pounds  ster- 
ling. About  two  thousand  ministers  could  not,  with  a  good  con- 
science, comply;  and  they  were  deprived  accordingly. 


9S  Review. 

They  who  can  persuade  themselves  that  the 
Episcopal  prelates  enjoy  the  same  power,  which 
was  vested  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  are  welcome 
to  their  consolation.  We  are,  as  yet,  a  great  ways 
off  from  the  line  of  converts. 

Our  Jifth  difficulty  relates  to  the  question,  whe- 
ther the  twelve  were  really  a  superiour  order  to 
the  seventy  ?  We  cannot  perceive  in  the  New 
Testament  any  characters  of  such  superiority. 
On  comparing  the  history  of  their  appointment, 
we  find  their  commission  was  the  same  both  in 
form  and  in  substance;  that  they  had  the  same 
powers,  the  same  instructions,  the  same  cautions, 
|:he  same  support;  in  short,  that  their  whole  mis- 
sion was  the  same.  Let  any  man  of  common  can- 
dour read  the  account  of  it  in  Matthew  and  Luke ; 
and  let  him  discover,  if  he  can,  any  thing  that 
bears  the  semblance  of  a  superiour  and  inferiour 
order.  To  facilitate  his  inquiry  we  subjoin  the 
passages  alluded  to — 

The  Twelve  :  |  The  Seventy  : 

Matthew  ix.  37— x.  16.  Luhe  x.  1—16. 

"  Then  saith  he  unto  his  "  After  these  things  the 
disciples,  The  harvest  truly  is   Lord  appointed  other  seventy 


plenteous,  but  the  labourers  are 
few.  Pray  ye  therefore,  the 
Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he 
will  send  forth  labourers  into 
his  harvest.  And  when  he 
had  called  unto  him  his  twelve 
disciples,  he  gave  them  power 


also,  and  sent  them  two  and 
two  before  his  face  into  ewery 
city  and  place  whither  he  him- 
self would  come.  Therefore 
said  he  unto  them.  The  harvest 
truly  is  great,  but  the  labourers 
are  few  :  pray  ye  therefore,  the 


Essays  on  Episcopacy, 


93 


The  Twelve. 
against  unclean  spirits,  to  cast 
tliera  out ;  and  to  heal  all 
manner  of  sickness,  and  all 
manner  of  disease.  Now  the 
names  of  the  twelve  apostles 
are  these ;  the  first,  Simon, 
who  is  called  Peter,  and  An- 
drew his  brother;  James  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his 
brother ;  Philip  and  Bartho- 
lomew ;  Thomas  and  Matthew 
the  publican  ;  James  the  son 
of  Alpheus,  and  Lebbeus, 
whose  surname  was  Thad- 
deus.  Simon  the  Canaanite, 
and  Judas  Iscariot  who  also 
betraved  him.  These  twelve 
Jesus  sent  forth, and  command- 
ed them,  sayinof.  Go  not  into 
the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans 
enter  ye  not :  but  g;o  rather  to 
the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel.  And,  as  ye  go,  preach, 
saying,  The  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven is  at  hand.  Heal  the  sick, 
cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the 
dead,  cast  out  devils  ;  freely 
ye  have  received,  freely  give. 
Provide  neither  gold,  nor  sil- 
ver, nor  brass,  in  your  purses  ; 
nor  scrip  for  your  journey,  nei- 
ther two  coats,  neither  shoes, 
nor  yet  staves  ;  for  the  work- 
man is  worthy  of  his  meal. 
And  into  whatsoever  city  or 
town  ye  shall  enter,  inquire 
who  in  it  is  worthy ;  and  there 


The  Seventy. 
Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he 
would  send  forth  labourers  in- 
to his  harvest.  Go  your  ways: 
behold,  I  send  you  forth  as 
Iambs  among  wolves.  Carry 
neither  purse,  nor  scrip,  nor 
shoes :  and  salute  no  man  by 
the  way.  And  into  whatso- 
ever house  ye  enter,  first  say, 
Peace  be  to  this  house.  And 
if  the  son  of  peace  be  there, 
your  peace  shall  rest  upon  it : 
if  not,  it  shall  turn  toyou  again. 
And  in  the  same  house  remain, 
eating  and  drinkiiifr  such  things 
as  they  give  :  for  the  labourer 
is  worthy  of  his  hire.  Go  not 
from  house  to  house.  And 
into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter, 
and  they  receive  you,  eat  such 
things  as  are  set  before  you  ; 
and  heal  the  sick  that  are 
therein  ;  and  say  unto  them, 
The  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
nigh  unto  you.  But  into  what- 
soever city  ye  enter,  and  they 
receive  you  not,  go  your  ways 
out  into  the  streets  of  the  same, 
and  say.  Even  the  very  dust  of 
your  city,  which  cleaveth  on 
us,  we  do  wipe  off  against  you : 
notwithstanding,  be  ye  sure  of 
this,  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  come  nigh  unto  you.  Butl 
say  unto  you,  That  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  in  that  day  for 
Sodom  than  for  that  city.  Wo 
unto  thee,  Chorazin  !  wo  unto 


94 


Review. 


The  Seventy. 

thee,  Bethsaida !  for  if  the 
mighty  works  had  been  done 
in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  which 
have  been  done  in  you,  they 
had  a  great  while  ago  repent- 
ed, sitting  in  sackcloth  and 
ashes.  But  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon 
at  the  judgment  than  for  you. 
And  thou,  Capernaum,  which 
art  exalted  to  heaven,  shaltbe 
thrust  down  to  hell.  He  that 
heareth  you,  heareth  me  ;  and 
he  that  despiseth  you,  despi- 
seth  me  ;  and  he  that  despiseth 
me,  despiseth  him  that  sent 
me." 


The  Twelve. 

abide  till  ye  go  thence.  And 
when  ye  come  into  an  house, 
salute  it.  And  if  the  house  be 
worthy,  let  your  peace  come 
upon  it :  but  if  it  be  not  w^or- 
thy,  let  your  peace  return  to 
you.  And  w  hosoever  shall  not 
receive  you,  nor  hear  your 
words,  when  ye  depart  out  of 
that  house  or  city,  shake  oft' 
the  dust  of  your  feet.  Verily 
I  say  unto  you.  It  shall  be 
more  tolerable  for  the  land  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  in  the 
day  of  judgment,  than  for  that 
city.  Behold,  I  send  you  forth 
as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves ; 
be  ye  therefore  wise  as  ser- 
pents, and  harmless  as  doves. 
He  that  receiveth  you,  receiv- 
eth  me  ;  and  he  that  receiveth 
me,  receiveth  him  that  sent 
me." 


If,  after  all,  the  twelve  were  an  order  superiour 
to  the  seventy,  the  evidence,  whether  in  these  or 
other  parts  of  the  evangehcal  narrative,  is  too  sub- 
tle for  our  clumsy  senses.  The  Layman,  however, 
whose  perceptions  are  not  so  dull,  has  been  more 
fortunate.     Let  us  betake  ourselves  to  his  aid. 

''  The  twelve,"  says  he,  "  were  superiour  to  the 
seventy,  both  in  dignity  midi poiuery 

They  were  superiour  in  "  dignityy 

How  is  this  proved  }  Thus — 

1.  "  The  apostles  are  every  where  spoken  of, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  95 

as  the  constant  attendants  of  our  Lord."  There- 
fore, they  were  of  a  higher  rank  than  the  seventy ! 
The  Layman  is  as  active  as  he  is  sharp-sighted ; 
but  the  ditch  between  his  premises  and  his  conclu- 
sion being  rather  too  wide  for  us  to  leap,  we  can- 
not conveniently  follow  him. 

But  the  Layman  has  forgotten  that  there  were 
others,  beside  the  apostles,  who  are  mentioned  as 
the  constant  attendants  of  our  Lord,*'  and  who  re- 
ceived from  that  circumstance  no  pre-eminence  of 
authority  whatever.  The  Layman's  first  argu- 
ment, then,  is  •'  good  for  nothing." 

2.  ''  The  commission  of  the  apostles  was  much 
more  general"  than  that  of  the  seventy.*  The  lat- 
ter ^'  were  sent  before  our  Lord  into  the  cities 
ivhithsr  he  himself  would  come.''''  The  former  were 
directed  "  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  the  Jews." 
A  minister,  therefore,  who  should  be  instructed  to 
make  a  preaching  tour  through  the  United  States, 
would  be  of  a  higher  grade  than  one  whose  la- 
bours should  be  confined  to  the  state  of  Nev/ 
York.  If  this  argument  of  the  Layman  is  not 
very  satisfactory,  it  is  at  least  ingenious.  There 
is  something  vastly  pleasant  in  regulating  the 
grandeur  of  the  priesthood  by  the  length  of  a  jour- 
ney; and  determining  its  grades  with  a  pair  of 
geographical  compasses ! 

3.  "  The  inauguration  of  the  twelve  was  much 

»  Acis  i.  21. 


96  Review. 

more  solemn  than  that  of  the  seventy."  Therefore 
they  must  be  of  a  superioiir  order.  Because  ai 
the  world  knows  that  it  is  impossible  to  appoint, 
though  on  different  occasions,  officers  of  tb-  same 
rank  without  the  very  same  degree  of  j^  jiemnity. 
This  is  demonstration!  Is  it  not,  good  reader? 
But  in  what  was  the  inauguration  of  the  twelve 
more  solemn  than  that  of  the  seventy? 

*'  In  relation  to  the  first,"  replies  the  Layman,  "  we  find 
our  Saviour  directing  his  disciples  to  pray  to  God  to  send 
!  ibourers  into  the  harvest.  We  find  him  continuing  himself 
a  whole  night  in  prayer.  In  the  inauguration  of  the  seventy 
t'aere  was  nothing  of  all  this  solemnity."     P.  154. 

Nothing !  if  we  read  our  bible  correctly,  there 
is  the  same  direction  about  prayer  to  the  Lord  of 
the  harvest,  for  labourers  in  his  harvest,  coupled 
with  the  mission  of  the  seventy,  and  of  the  twelve. 
Y^ith  respect  to  his  continuing  in  prayer  the  whole 
night  previous  to  the  choice  of  his  apostles,  is  the 
Layman  sure  that  their  appointment  was  the  spe- 
cial cause  of  our  Lord's  being  thus  employed  ? 
That  he  never  prayed  in  this  manner  upon  any 
other  occasion  ?  And  particularly,  before  the  elec- 
tion of  the  seventy  ?  And  supposing  him  to  be  sure 
of  all  this  ;  how  does  it  affect  relative  dignity  ? 
Christ  prayed  all  night  before  appointing  the 
twelve,  and  not  before  appointing  the  seventy, 
therefore,  the  twelve  were  a  superiour  order  of 
ministers  !  It  seems,  then,  that  it  was  not  preach- 
ing the  gospel,  nor  performing  mighty  works  in 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  9^T 

his  name,  which  lay  so  near  the  Saviour's  heart 
when  he  was  about  to  send  forth  his  messengers, 
as  to  engage  him  all  night  in  prayer ;  but  it  was 
the  desire  to  set  off  a  supferiour  order  of  them  with 
suitable  eclat ! — When  the  twelve  are  to  be  com- 
missioned, he  prays  all  night.  When  the  seventy 
are  to  be  commissioned,  he  is  not  at  the  same 
trouble;  and  this  merely  to  show  that  they  are 
not  of  such  high  dignity  as  the  others  !  Poor  dis- 
ciples !  To  have  the  same  duties  and  the  same 
trials  with  your  twelve  superiours,  and  much  less 
interest  in  your  master's  affections  and  prayers  ! 
It  was  no  small  matter,  we  see,  to  be  a  bishop  or 
something  like  one,  in  the  days  of  his  flesh  :  And 
if  the  Layman  will  undertake  to  prove  that  the 
successour-bishops  have  still  the  same  enviable 
privilege,  we  shall  not  refuse  him  the  praise  of 
courage  !  However,  if  they  act  up  to  the  principle 
of  his  argument,  there  is  one  inference  which  we 
think  may  be  drawn  from  it  with  rather  clearer 
evidence  than  his  own  for  the  pre-eminence  of  the 
apostles  above  the  seventy  ;  and  that  is,  that  when 
the  hierarchy  is  about  ordaining  bishops,  she 
prays  most  fervently  ;  and  when  presbyters  are  to 
be  ordained,  she  does  not  think  it  worth  while  to 
pray  at  all ! 

The  Layman  proceeds  : 

"  The  apostles  were,  likewise,  superiour,"  viz.  to  the  seventy, 
"  in  j9o?^?«r."     p.  154 

How  is  this  proved  }  Thus  : 
Vol.  III.  13 


98  Review, 

"  They  alone  received  the  commission  to  offer  the  eucha- 
ristic  sacrifice  of  bread  and  wine." 

We  stay  not  to  comment  on  the  popish  style  of 
this  passage.  "  Eucharistic  sacrifice  r  The  scrip- 
ture knows  neither  the  name  nor  the  thing,  in  re- 
ference to  the  co7yimemoration  of  our  Lord's  death 
in  the  sacrament  of  the  supper.  The  Layman's 
argument  for  the  superiority  of  the  twelve  is,  that 
they  alone  were  authorized  to  administer  this  sa- 
crament. Indeed !  How,  then,  came  it  to  be  ad- 
ministered by  the  Episcopal  priests  who  are  not 
the  successours  of  the  apostles?  Either  this  power 
does  not  prove  superiority  of  rank,  or  else  the 
hierarchy  has  transferred  to  an  inferiour  order, 
one  of  the  peculiar  functions  of  the  superiour; 
and  thus  corrupted  the  institutions  of  Christ.  The 
Layman  has  his  option.  It  will  not  be  possible 
to  evade  the  alternative  ;  because  the  Lord's  sup- 
per is  an  ordinance  of  perpetual  obligation,  and 
could  not  be  administered  by  the  apostles  till  af- 
ter his  death;  nor  is  there  a  shadow  of  proof  that 
it  was  ever  administered  by  them  till  after  his  as- 
cension, and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
Pentecost.  Prove  what  it  will,  it  cannot  prove 
the  superiority  of  the  twelve  above  the  seventy 
during  his  abode  upon  earth.  And  what  is  more, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  institution  of  the  supper  to 
express  the  conveyance  of  authority  to  administer 
it.  There  is  nothing  but  the  appointment  of  it 
for  the  observation  of  the  church.     This  do  in  re- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  99 

membrance  of  me;  for  as  often  as  ye- eat  this  bread 
and  drink  this  cvp^  ys  do  shew  the  Lord^s  death  till  he 
come.  But  all  communicants  "  do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  him,"  they  all  "show  forth  his  death," 
in  the  holy  supper,  as  much  as  did  the  apostles. 
The  commission  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
and  govern  the  church,  was  not  given  till  the  very 
moment  of  his  departure  from  earth. 

In  the  next  place  : 

**  To  the  twelve,"  says  the  Layman, "  were  twelve  thrones 
appointed,  whereon  they  should  sit,  judging  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel."     P.  154. 

As  this  language  is  altogether  symbolical,  he 
should  have  fixed  his  meaning  before  he  quoted  it 
as  a  proof  This  he  has  not  done,  and  it  is  not 
our  business  to  do  it  for  him.  But  Cyprian  has 
conceded  that  Christ  held,  in  his  own  hands,  the 
supreme  authority  while  he  was  on  earth ;  the 
Layman  himself  has  told  us,  that  the  twelve  dur- 
ing this  period,  had  not  the  power  of  ordination  ; 
and  men  who  had  power,  neither  to  govern  nor  to 
ordain,  are  not  very  fitly  depicted  by  the  symbols 
of  men  "  sitting  upon  thrones,  and  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  The  Layman  has  again 
mistaken  and  misrepresented  the  passage, /?ofr/  of 
which  he  has  cited.  It  stands  thus,  in  Math.  xix. 
28.  "Jesus  said  unto  them.  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  that  ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the  re- 
generation, when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne 
of  his  glory ^  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones, 


100  Review. 

judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  It  appears 
from  Luke,  ch.  xxii.  that  this  promise  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  twelve  just  before  our  Lord's  pas- 
sion. Whatever  then  is  meant  by  the  "  twelve 
thrones,"  and  the  "  judgment  of  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel,"  it  was  not,  and  could  not  be  possessed 
by  the  apostles,  till  after  their  master's  exaltation  : 
till  he  should  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory.  He  was 
to  bestow  it  upon  them  after  he  should  have  '•  as- 
cended up  far  above  all  heavens,"  and  not  before. 
This  is  the  text  on  which  the  Layman  relies  for 
proof  of  the  pre-eminence  of  the  twelve  during  our 
Lord's  humiliation.,  when  he  did  not  sit  in  the  throne 
of  his  glory,  and  consequently  tUey  did  not  sit  on 
their  thrones. 

But  "  on  them,"  viz.  the  twelve,  "  was  to  rest  the  fabric  of 
the  church.  The  wait  of  tlie  city  having  twelve  foundations, 
and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb.'''' 
Rev.  xxi.  14. 

Another  blunder,  as  usual.  A  symbolical  repre- 
sentation of  a  state  of  the  church  which  has  not^ 
yet  happened,  is  to  prove  that  the  twelve  were 
superiour  to  the  seventy  in  the  days  of  their  mas- 
ter's flesh,  and  before  they  had  received  any  com- 
mission whatever  to  govern  ! 

There  is  one  argument  more. 

"  Upon  the  happening  of  a  vacancy,  by  the  apostacy  of 
Judas,  Matthias  was  raised  to  his  bishoprick,  being  numbered 
with  the  eleven  apostles,  and  taking  a  part  of  their  ministry. 
Acts  i.  Matthias  had  been  one  of  the  seventy.  For  this  we 
have  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  of  Jerome,  of  Epiphanius. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  101 

Mark,  Luke,  Sosthenes,  with  other  evangelists,  as  also  the 
seven  deacons,  were  of  the  seventy,  if  the  primitive  fathers  of 
the  church  be  at  all  to  be  relied  upon  as  witnesses  of  facts. 
And  these  persons,  even  after  their  promotion,  were  still  infe- 
rioiir  to  the  twelve,  being  under  their  government."     P.  154. 

The  elevation  of  Matthias  to  the  apostleship 
took  place  after  the  eleven  had  received  their 
commission  from  the  risen  Saviour,  and  after  he 
had  ascended  to  heaven  :  and  this  is  to  prove  that 
they  were  superiour  to  the  seventy  before  his  pas- 
sion. Truly  the  Layman  has  a  right  to  make 
himself  merry  with  the  logic  of  his  opponents ! 
But  did  the  seventy  retain,  after  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, the  commission  which  they  had  before  his 
death,  or  did  they  not }  If  they  did  not,  the  Lay- 
man's argument  goes  to  the  wall  at  once.  If  they 
did,  then  it  is  strange  that  their  official  character 
is  never  so  much  as  mentioned,  after  the  resurrec- 
tion, in  any  part  of  the  New  Testament.  And  it 
is  no  less  strange  that  the  Layman  should  repre- 
sent any  of  them  as  heing promoted  to  the  office  of 
deacons.  Lower  they  could  not  be,  to  be  in  the 
"  priesthood"  at  all.  And  if  they  were  next  the 
apostles,  as  they  were  put  in  a  preceding  part  of 
the  discussion,  their  being  made  deacons^  was  a 
promotion  downwards.  They  must  have  been,  as 
belonging  to  the  priesthood,  either  of  the  order  of 
deacons,  or  of  a  superiour  order :  if  deacons,  their 
ordination  to  that  office  by  the  apostles  was  a 
farce ;  if  of  a  superiour  order,  it  degraded  them. 
The  Layman  has  again  his  choice.    But  whether 


102  Review. 

they  were  ihen  degraded,  or  promoted,  or  neither, 
what  has  this  to  do  with  their  own  office  or  that 
of  the  apostles,  during  our  Lord's  abode  upon 
earth  ? 

So  much  for  the  Layman's  proofs  that  the  twelve 
were  superiour  to  the  seventy.  He  has  not  proved, 
nor  can  he,  with  the  whole  phalanx  of  the  hierar- 
chy to  help  him,  prove,  either  from  their  commis- 
sion, or  from  their  acts,  that  the  twelve  exercised 
or  possessed  an  atom  of  power  over  the  seventy. 

But  our  difficulties  are  not  yet  ended.  We  en- 
counter a  formidable  one  in  the  fact,  that  the 
Christian  church  was  not  organized  at  all  during  our 
Lord^s  residence  on  earth.  The  ministry  of  the 
baptist,  his  own  ministry,  and  that  of  the  apostles 
and  the  seventy,  were  all  preparative.  The  church 
could  not  be  organized  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion, till  the  Jewish  form  ceased  ;  and  that  could 
not  cease  till  the  Messiah  had  "finished  transgres- 
sion, made  an  end  of  sin,  and  made  reconciliation 
for  iniquity,"  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  Accord- 
ingly, he  gave  his  apostles  their  high  commission 
after  his  resurrection ;  and  they  did  not  so  much 
as  attempt  to  act  upon  it,  till,  as  he  had  promised, 
they  were  "  endued  with  power  from  on  high,"  by 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost.  Then 
they  were  able  to  speak  in  the  name  of  a  master 
who  was  "  set  on  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 
the  majesty  in  the  heavens."  Then,  and  not  till 
then,  did  the  church  put  on  her  New  Testament 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  103 

form.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  idle  to  infer  what 
this  form  should  be,  from  her  appearance  in  her 
unformed  state. 

Once  more.  Had  the  Episcopal  writers  even 
made  good  their  assertions  concerning  the  state 
of  the  church  in  the  period  we  have  been  review- 
ing, it  would  avail  them  nothing.  Because  our 
Lord  has  settled  the  platform  of  his  church,  the 
leading  principles  of  her  order,  by  positive  statute; 
and  this  precludes,  to  the  whole  extent  of  the 
statute,  all  reasoning  from  analogy.  We  have 
nothing  to  do  but  to  ascertain  what  he  has 
enacted. 

Thus  have  the  proofs  drawn  in  favour  of  the 
hierarchy,  from  the  Jewish  priesthood,  and  frQm 
the  state  of  the  church  during  our  Lord's  personal 
ministry,  vanished,  successively,  at  the  touch. — 
Grosser  abuse  of  the  divine  word  than  we  have 
had  occasion  to  expose,  cannot  easily  be  found. 
The  Layman  hardly  approaches  a  text  without 
disfiguring  it.  He  is  young,  very  young,  in  the 
study  of  his  bible.  This  is  some  excuse  ;  and,  in 
his  being  a  layman.,  he  has  an  apology  which  can- 
not be  extended  to  Cyprian,  Vindex,  or  Cornelius. 
If  reading  the  scriptures,  like  correct  interpreters, 
were  to  be  the  test,  we  much  fear  that,  in  the 
issue  of  the  present  trial,  neither  himself,  nor  his 
reverend  associates,  would  be  entitled  to  plead  the 
benefit  of  clergy. 


104  R 


cview. 


Facts  to  justify  the  Episcopal  claim,  have  been 
sought,  without  effect,  in  the  constitution  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood,  and  in  that  peculiar  state  of 
the  church  which  existed  during  our  Lord's  per- 
sonal ministry.  These  refuges  have  failed.  The 
hierarchy  has  been  dislodged  from  all  her  in- 
trenchments  in  succession,  and  left  without  a  rest- 
ing place  for  the  sole  of  her  foot,  in  any  part  of 
the  religious  territory  which  was  occupied  by  the 
church  from  the  days  of  Abraham,  till  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  We  acknowledge,  however,  that  she 
will  suffer  little  detriment  from  her  defeat,  if  she 
can  establish  herself  firmly  upon  New  Testament 
ground.  The  strength  of  her  positions  here,  is 
next  to  be  tried.  If,  as  she  glories,  i\iG  facts  of  the 
New  Testament  are  on  her  side,  we  own  ourselves 
vanquished,  and  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  hand 
her  our  swords.  But  we  shall  not  take  her  word 
for  it.  Let  the  facts  be  produced.  According  to 
the  writers  whom  we  are  reviewing,  they  are  found 
in  the  pre-eminence  of  James  at  Jerusalem  ;  of 
Timothy  at  Ephesus ;  of  Titus  in  Crete  ;  and  of 
the  seven  angels  in  the  Asiatic  churches.  Epa- 
phroditus,  too,  has  been  occasionally  added  to  the 
number.  The  ability  and  learning  of  Cyprian^  had 
done  him  up  into  a  bishop,  and  had  dispatched 
him  from  Philippi,  in  Episcopal  majesty,  on  a  visit 
to  Paul  at  Rome.  Unfortunately  the  good  man 
lost  his  mitre  by  the  way,  so  that  when  he  arrived, 
the  apostle  could  not  distinguish  him  from  a  sim- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  105 

pic  messenger,  who  came  on  an  errand  from  his 
Philippian  friends,  and  sent  him  back  again  in 
statu  quo,  without  a  single  mark  of  prelatical  dig- 
nity. So  we  leave  him  to  go  in  quest  of  the 
others.  Before  investigating  the  validity  of  their 
individual  titles,  we  ask  the  reader's  attention  to 
some  general  presumptions  against  the  existence  of 
prelates  in  the  apostolic  church.  Presumptions, 
in  our  view,  so  strong,  as  almost  to  supersede  the 
necessity  of  further  examination. 

The  first  is  this,  that  no  such  order  is  mentioned, 
nor  even  alluded  to,  either  in  the  salutations  of  PauVs 
epistles  to  the  churches,  or  in  his  directions  for  the 
'performance  of  relative  duties.  Had  prelacy  been  of 
apostolic  origin ;  had  Paul  himself  been  distin- 
guished for  his  zeal  in  establishing  it,  would  there 
not  have  been  something  in  his  epistles  to  the 
churches,  appropriated  to  their  chief  officer.'^ 
He  gives  very  exact  instructions  to  every  other 
class  of  Christians ;  points  out,  minutely,  their 
duties  to  each  other ;  carefully  distinguishes  be- 
tween presbyters  and  deacons ;  draws  their  re- 
spective characters,  and  assigns  their  functions ; 
salutes  individual  ministers  and  private  Christians, 
both  men  and  women,  by  name ;  but  no  where 
says  one  syllable  to  the  superiour  grade  of  mi- 
nisters !  How  is  this  fact  to  be  explained  ?  That 
Paul,  who  observed  the  most  scrupulous  proprie- 
ty in  all  his  addresses — who  left  no  part  of  reli- 
gious society  any  excuse  for  neglect  of  duty — 

Vol.  m.       *  14 


106  R 


eview. 


who  overlooked  nothing  Avhich  might  tend  to 
counsel,  conciliate,  or  console — who  carefully 
avoided  every  thing  contemptuous  or  irritating — 
who  was  even  solicitious,  as  we  are  told,  to  as- 
sert the  dignity  of  prelates  above  that  of  presby- 
ters— that  this  very  Paul  should  take  no  manner 
of  notice  of  them  in  his  letters  to  their  dioceses, 
should  enjoin  respect  and  obedience  to  their  sub- 
alterns before  their  faces ;  and  not  so  much  as 
hint  at  the  obedience  which  these  subalterns  owed 
to  them,  is  past  all  belief!  It  would  bespeak  not 
a  man  of  discretion ;  much  less  a  wise  man ;  less 
still,  a  great  man ;  least  of  all  an  inspired  apostle 
— but  a  downright  idiot.  He  could  not  have 
fallen  upon  a  more  effectual  method  to  disgrace 
them  with  their  people  ;  to  encourage  insubordi- 
nation among  their  presbyters ;  and,  by  wanton- 
ly sporting  with  their  feelings,  to  convert  them 
into  personal  enemies.  How  then,  we  ask  again, 
shall  this  omission  be  accounted  for  ?  It  will  not 
do  to  reply,  that  as  the  names  of  bishop  and  pres- 
byter were  promiscuously  used,  he  joins  them  in 
common  directions,  salutation,  and  honour.  This 
answer  relieves  not  the  difficulty :  for  it  cannot 
extend  to  the  deacons,  whom  he  expressly  distin- 
guishes from  the  presbyters.  Well,  then,  he  singles 
out  the  bluest  order  of  clergy,  pays  them  marked 
.attention,  and,  by  this  very  act,  insults  the  prelates 
whom  his  silence  had  sufficiently  mortified.  Fur- 
ther, if  one  set  of  particular  instructions  suits  dif- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  107 

ferent  sets  of  officers,  how  can  \he\x  functions  be 
different  ?  If  the  prerogative  of  the  prelate  con- 
sist in  the  power  of  ordination  and  government, 
how  can  his  duties  be  comprised  in  a  draught  of 
instructions  for  officers  who  have  no  such  power  ? 
It  would  be  as  rational  to  insist  that  the  very  same 
instructions  would  suit  the  governour  of  a  pro- 
vince and  the  constable  of  a  town.  And  did  not 
every  rule  of  decorum  require,  on  the  part  of  the 
apostle,  a  primary  attention  to  that  order  whicli 
was  emphatically  to  succeed  him?  that  order, 
without  which,  we  are  taught  the  Christian  church 
can  have  neither  form  nor  government,  nor  minis- 
try, nor  sacraments,  nor  lawful  assemblies;  no, 
nor  even  existence  ?  That  this  order  should  first 
be  instituted  by  the  apostle,  and  then  passed  over 
in  absolute  neglect  when  he  is  writing  to  their 
churches;  or  be  lumped  with  their  inferiours, 
while  the  grades  of  these  inferiours  are  addressed 
in  a  manner  which  it  is  impossible  to  mistake, 
puts  all  credulity  at  defiance.  The  question, 
therefore,  returns.  How  shall  we  solve  this  enigma 
in  the  conduct  of  Paul  ?  The  simple  solution  is,  he 
takes  no  separate  notice  of  bishops  as  superiour  to 
presbyters^  because  no  such  bishops  existed.  Other 
solution  there  is  none.  For  it  is  very  certain  that 
after  their  introduction  they  figured  gloriously. 
Whoever  was  left  in  the  back  ground,  the  bishop 
came  conspicuously  forward — whoever  was  thrown 
into  the  shade,  the  bishop  was  irradiated — who- 


108  Review. 

ever  was  treated  with  neglect,  due  homage  to  the 
bishop  was  never  forgotten.  Not  such  was  the 
fact  in  the  days  of  St.  Paul;  therefore,  not  such 
was  the  order  which  he  had  instituted. 

2.  Another  presumption,  if,  indeed,  it  deserve 
not  a  higher  name,  against  the  episcopal  con- 
struction of  the  New  Testament  facts,  is,  that  one 
at  least,  of  the  two  powers  said  to  be  vested  ex- 
clusively in  prelates,  is  clearly  attributed  to  pres- 
byters.    We  mean  the  power  o^ government. 

There  are  three  terms  employed  in  the  New 
Testament  to  express  the  authority  which  is  to  be 
exercised  in  the  Christian  church,  and  they  are 
all  appUed  to  presbyters.     These  terms  are, 

1.  ^/sofAaj — To  take  the  lead. 

2.  •^^oir^ifxi— To  stand  before — to  preside. 

3.  <;ro«.aaivoo— To  act  the  part,  to  fulfill  the  duties 
of  a  shepherd. 

Every  power  which  Christ  hath  deputed  to  his 
officers,  is  conveyed  by  one  or  other  of  these 
terms. 

For  the  greater  precision  we  shall  show,  firsts 
that  they  do  express  the  power  of  government ; 
and  then^  that  each  of  them  is  applied  to^presby- 
ters. 

1.  HrEOMAi.  To  take  the  lead — signifies  to 
'•  rule."  Math,  ii.  6.  Thoi^  Bethlehem.,  in  the  land 
of  Jiida.)  art  not  the  least  among  the  princes  (  ^/s.xocTjv) 
of  Jada ;  for  out  of  thse  shall  come  a  governour 
( 7i7ou(xevoj)  that  shall  rule  my  people  Israel  The  force 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  109 

of  the  term,  then,  cannot  be  questioned.  It  is  ap- 
plied to  presbyters. 

Heb.  xii.  7.  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule 
OVER  you.  ("Twe  ^/oufxsvwv  ufAwv  your  rulers.)  The  apos- 
tle is  speaking  of  their  deceased  pastors ;  for  he 
immediately  adds,  ivho  have  spoken  untoyou  the  word 
of  God  ;  whose  faith  follow^  considering  the  end,  the 
issue  or  termination,  of  their  conversation.     Again, 

V.  17.  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you., 
(toij  »;7oufAsvoiff  ufAwv^  for  they  watch  for  your  souls  as  they 
that  must  give  account. 

That  these  "  rulers''  were  presbyters,  is  evident 
from  a  single  consideration;  the  apostle  attri- 
butes the  power  of  "  ruhng,"  to  those  deceased 
pastors  who  had  preached  the  gospel  to  the  He- 
brew converts;  and  those  living  ones  who  "  watch- 
ed for  their  souls;"  which  are  undeniably  the 
functions  of  presbyters ;  therefore  Paul  recog- 
nizes in  presbyters,  all  the  power  of  government 
expressed  by  the  first  term — rulers. 

2.  nPOI2THMI,ornPOI2TAMAI.  To  stand 
or  place  before — to  preside — to  rule.  1  Tim.  iii.  4. 
A  Bishop  must  be  one  that  ruleth  well-  (xocXug 
TT^oifrrocixsvov)  his  own  house.  The  same  in  v.  5.  12.* 

The  power  expressed  by  this  term  also,  is  ap- 
plied to  Presbyters. 

1  Thess.  V.  12.    We  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know 


*  For  other  references  see  Raphelii  Annot.  Phil,  in  N.  T.  ad 
locum,  &-  Schleusneri  Novum  Lexicon  in  ^.  T. 


110  Review* 

them  which  labour  among  yoii^  and  are  over  you 
(j^oifTT-ocyLBVovg)  in  the  Lord. 

It  is  a  description  of  ordinary  faithful  pastors; 
not  of  prelates,  for  there  were  several  at  Thessalo- 
nica  ;  and  diocesan  Episcopacy  admits  of  but  one 
in  a  city.  The  whole  description  taken  together, 
supposes  the  exercise  of  functions,  and  an  intimacy 
of  inteiicourse,  among  the  people,  which  a  prelate 
cannot  possibly  observe  in  his  diocese  ;  but 
w^ich  is  exactly  characteristic  of  the  Presbyter. 
However,  to  put  the  matter  out  of  all  doubt,  Paul 
charges  Timothy,  1  Eph.  v.  17.  Let  the  elders  that 
RULE  WELL,  (^01  xolXcjs  TT^oetTTCfjTSi)  be  accounted  ivorthy 
of  double  honour,  &c. 

Presbyters  they  are.  Episcopacy  herself  being 
judge  :  for  this  is  one  of  the  passages  which  she 
quotes  to  prove  their  inferiority  in  the  church  of 
Ephesus,  to  bishop  Timothy.  The  apostle,  then, 
here  formally  attributes  to  presbyters  the  power 
of  "ruling,"  which  we  humbly  conceive  to  be 
much  the  same  with  the  power  of  "  government." 

3.  nOIMAINO.  To  exercise  the  office  of  a 
shepherd;  hence,  to  provide  for  the  safety  and 
comfort  of  any  one — to  direct,  to  oontroul,  to  go- 
vern. 

This  term  being  more  comprehensive  than 
either  of  the  former  two,  we  crave  the  reader's  in- 
dulgence to  a  minuter  proof  of  the  last  mentioned 
acceptation,  viz.  to  "  govern." 

As  early  as  the  days  of  Homer,  this  word  and 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  Ill 

its  relatives  were  in  familiar  use,  to  designate  not 
only  authority,  but  the  highest  authority  in  the 
commonwealth.  Thence  that  frequent  Homeric 
phrase  "the  shepherd  of  the  people,"  for  their 
''  king."  No  one  who  is  in  the  least  conversant 
with  that  pre-eminent  poet  will  ask  for  examples ; 
but  lest  we  should  be  contradicted  by  such  as  are 
not,  and  yet  wish  to  pass  for  "  Greek  scholars," 
we  subjoin  a  few;  though  at  the  hazard  of  being 
again  reproved  by  Mr.  Hobart  for  our  "  ostenta- 
tion." 

A^uavTtt  Tc  nOIMENA  Xawv. 

II.    A.  263. 

"  Dry  as  the  shepherd  of  the  people" — which 
the  scholiast  interprets  by  BaciXea  o%Xwy ;  "  the 
KING  of  multitudes." 

-n-ei^ovTo  TS  nOlMENI  Xawv 

2K>i'ffrou)(;oi  [3a(fiXy]Ss.  II.  B.  85. 

"  The  sceptred  kings  yielded  to  the  shepherd  of 
the  people." — Where  the  schohast  again  explains 
"  shepherd"  by  "  king."  Baa-iXsh 

In  the  same  poet,  "  shepherd"  is  used  inter- 
changeably with  other  terms  descriptive  of  the 
military  chiefs  of  Greece. 

Aiav  Sio-ysvss,T£\aiX(,)ViS,  KOIPANE  Xawv.  II.   I.   640. 

Oirivs^  HFEMONES  Aavawv  xaj  KOIPANOI  7](3'av.    II.  B.  487. 

Those  who  are  elsewhere  called  "  shepherds," 
are  here  named  "leaders"  and  "princes;"  the 
former  being  interpreted  "  kings"  by  the  scholi- 
ast, as  he  had  already  interpreted  "shepherds." 


112  Review, 

In  the  same  way  does  he  translate  the  latter,  in 
his  annotation  upon  v.  204,  of  the  book  last  cited. 
So  that  by  the  great  master  of  Grecian  language 
and  literature,  the  three  terms,  IloijUiJii/,  Hyf/jtwi', 
Koi^ocvog,  i.  e.  "  shepherd,"  "leader,"  "prince,"  are 
interchangeably  used  of  the  same  rank,  and  are 
all  explained  by  the  Greek  commentator,  BafriXevg, 
i.  e.  "  king."  Instances  might  easily  be  multiplied, 
but  we  forbear.  We  have  the  rather  appealed  to 
Homer,  because  he  depicts  that  same  state  of 
society  in  which  a  great  portion  of  the  scriptures 
was  written ;  and  alludes  to  those  same  objects 
from  which  they  have  borrowed  much  of  their 
imagery,  and  many  of  their  terms. 

Proceed  we  now  to  the  septuagint  version  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  was  completed  be- 
tween two  and  three  centuries  before  Christ. 
2  Kings^  V.  2.  in  our  version,  2  Sam.  v.  2.  The 
Lord  said  unto  thee,  viz.  David,  thou  shall  feed 
(jroifJLOcvsig,  shalt  act  as  a  shepherd  to)  my  people 
Israel^  and  thou  shalt  be  a  captain  (^riyovfisvov)  over 
Israel. 

Precisely  the  same  sort  of  example  is  to  be 
found  in  Ch.  vii.  7,  1  Chron.  ii.  2.  xvii.  6  ;  also  Ps. 
xlviii.  14.  Death  shall  feed  vpon  (^ro/^ai^fi,  shall 
have  the  rule  over)  them. 

The  New  Testament  is  equally  decisive.  Math, 
ii.  6.  Thou,  Bethlehem,  in  the  land  of  Juda,  art  not 
the  least  among  the  princes  of  Juda;  for  out  of  thee 
shall  come  a  govern  our  {riy  ovuivog)  that  shall  rule 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  113 

(Toifxoivsh  feed,  superintend  as  a  shepherd,)  my 
people  Israel.  The  prophet  speaks  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  "  good  shepherd,"  and 
the  "  chief  shepherd ;"  and  who  had,  and  has, 
"  the  government  upon  his  shoulder."     Is.  ix.  6. 

This  term,  likewise,  is  appHed  to  Presbyters. 

Acts  XX.  17,  28.  Fi'om  Miletus,  Paul  sent  to 
Ephesi/s,  and  called  the  presbyters  of  the  church  and 
said  unto  them — Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all 
the  jlock  over  ivhich  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
BISHOPS  to  FEED  (^TToifjLCiivsiy,  like  good  shepherds,  to 
provide  for,  watch  over,  and  govern,)  the  church  of 
God,  <kc. 

1  Pet.  V.  2,  3.  The  presbyters  who  are  amonsr 
you,  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a  presbyter.  Feed 
(jroifxavoiTe^  the  Jlock  of  God  which  is  among  you, 
taking  the  oversight  (^eTna-kOTrovvrsg,  discharging 
the  duty  of  bishops)  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but 
willingly  ;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind : 
Neither  as  beino;  lords  over  God^s  heritao-e.  but  beinsr 
ensamples  to  the  flock. 

It  is  obvious,  upon  the  very  face  of  the  texts, 
that  these  presbyters  of  Ephesus,  and  of  the  dis- 
persion, are  considered  as  vested  with  the  pasto- 
ral care  in  all  its  extent ;  and  they  are  command- 
ed to  be  faithful  to  the  trust  reposed  in  them,  by 
providing  for  the  protection,  nurture,  and  comfort 
of  the  flock  of  God.  This  '«  feeding"  the  flock, 
this  discharge  of  the  pastoral  duty,  is  directly  oj>- 

posed  bv  Peter,  to  being  "  lords  over  God's  heri- 

-    Vv^i.  Ill,  35 


114  Review. 

tage,"  i.  e.  to  rigorous  and  oppressive  govern- 
ment ;  or,  as  we  commonly  say,  to  "  lording  it" 
over  them.  The  contrast  could  have  had  no  place, 
had  not  these  presbyters  been  church  governours ; 
for  it  is  idle  to  warn  men  against  abusing  a  power 
which  they  do  not  possess.  By  instructing  them 
how  they  were  to  govern  the  church,  the  Apostle 
has  decided  that  the  power  of  government  was 
committed  to  them.  No  higher  authority  than 
he  has  recognized  in  them,  can  belong  to  the  or- 
der of  prelates.  For  the  very  same  term  by  which 
he  marks  the  power  of  the  presbyters,  is  employ- 
ed in  scripture,  to  mark  the  authority  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  himself^ 

The  reader  cannot  for  a  moment,  suppose  that 
we  put  any  power  left  in  the  church,  on  a  level 
with  that  of  her  divine  master.  Far  from  us  be 
the  thought  of  such  blasphemy.  But  we  contend 
for  these  two  things.  '^ 

1st.  That  the  term  which  both  Paul  and  Peter 
apply  to  the  office  of  presbyters,  undoubtedly  ex- 
presses the  power  o^  government ;  seeing  it  is  the 
term  which  expresses  the  office  of  Christ,  as  the 
governour  of  his  people  Israel. 

2d.  That  as  this  term,  applied  to  the  office  of 
Christ,  expresses  the  highest  power  of  government 
in  him  as  the  chief  shepherd  ;  so,  when  applied  to 
the  office  of  the  under  shepherds,  it  expresses  the 
highest  power  of  government  which  he  has  dele- 

•  Math.  ii.  6 — *jyouftsvoff  otf-Tiff  IIOIMANEI  tov  Xaov  fxou,  &c. 


Jitssays  on  Episcopacy,  115 

gated  to  be  exercised  in  his  name  for  the  welfare 
of  his  church.  But  this  power  is  vested,  Paul  and 
Peter  being  judges,  in  presbyters  ;  therefore,  pres- 
byters, by  the  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ,  are 
invested  with  the  highest  power  of  government 
known  in  his  church. 

We  go  further  :  The  authority  conveyed  by  the 
charge  to  "/eec/ the  flock  of  God,"  comprehends 
the  ordering  of  all  things  necessary  to  her  well  be- 
ing; and,  therefore,  the  power  of  vrdinatioi  like- 
wise. An  essential  part  of  the  Redeemer's  pasto- 
ral ofl[ice,  was,  and  is,  to  provide  under-pastors  for 
his  sheep.  This,  at  first,  he  did  in  person,  by  im- 
mediate vocation.  But  having  ''  ascended  up  far 
above  all  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things," 
he  performs  the  same  office  through  the  medium 
of  the  pastors  whom  he  has  left  in  the  church. 
The  question  is  to  ivhat  pastors  has  he  committed 
the  trL\^t  of  ordaining  other  pastors,  and  thus  pre- 
serving the  pastoral  succession  ?  We  answer,  to 
presbyters :  for  he  has  affixed  to  their  office,  that 
very  term  which  designates  his  own  right  and  care 
to  furnish  his  church  with  pastors,  or  lawful  minis- 
ters. Let  our  Episcopal  brethren  show  as  much 
for  their  prelates,  if  they  can. 

To  sum  up  what  has  been  said  on  this  article  : 
No  expression  more  clear  and  decisive  than  those 
we  have  considered,  are  used  in  the  scripture  to 
denote  either  the  communication,  or  the  posses- 
sion, or  the  exercise,  of  the  ordinary  powers  given 


116  Review. 

by  Christ  for  the  well  ordering  of  his  church. 
And  we  have  shown,  that  the  New  Testament 
has,  in  the  most  direct  and  ample  manner,  con- 
fided them  all  to  presbyters. 

Unless,  therefore,  we  adopt  the  insane  paradox 
of  Hammond,  viz.  that  the  presbyters  of  the  New 
Testament  were  all  diocesan  bishops,  the  passages 
quoted  must  bear  one  of  two  senses.  Either  they 
point  out,  under  the  denomination  of  presbyters, 
those  officers  who  are  strictly  so  called,  in  con 
tradistinction  from  prelates  and  deacons  ;  or  they 
use  the  name  with  sufficient  latitude  to  include 
the  prelates  too.  If  the  former,  our  position  is 
established.  If  the  latter,  then  prelates  and  pres- 
byters ^xe  joined  together  in  the  power  of  govern- 
ment, which  the  hierarchy  maintains  is  confined 
to  prelates  alone.  In  either  way,  the  argument  is 
conclusive  against  her. 

3d.  At  a  very  early  period  of  the  Christian 
church,  presbyters  did  actually  exercise  the  power 
of  government :  exercised  it  in  conjunction  with 
the  apostles  themselves;  and  that  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  parity. 

The  important  question  concerning  the  obliga- 
tion upon  Christians  to  be  circumcised  and  keep 
the  law  of  Moses,  in  order  to  salvation,  was  refer- 
red by  the  church  at  Antioch,  to  the  apostles  and 
elders  at  Jerusalem.  The  historian  does  not  mean 
apostles  and  elders  who  had  a  fixed  and  perma- 
nent charge  at  Jerusalem,  which  was  essentially 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  117 

incompatible  with  their  apostolic  vocation.  But 
as  that  city  had  been  the  cradle  of  the  Christian 
church,  and  was  the  centre  of  religious  communi- 
cation from  all  parts  of  the  world,  ^he  apostles  re- 
turned thither  from  their  excursions  in  preaching 
the  gospel,  accompanied  with  Elders  or  Presby- 
ters from  the  churches  which  they  had  planted, 
and  met  together  in  ecclesiastical  council  to  con- 
sult about  their  common  interest.  Herein  they 
have  set  us  the  example,  and  left  us  the  warrant, 
of  a  delegated  body,  as  the  ultimate  resort  in  all 
ecclesiastical  affairs :  for,  such  a  body,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  was  the  assemblage  of  the 
apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem.  Of  this  most 
venerable  primitive  Synod,  we  treat  no  further  at 
present  than  to  ascertain  what  share  the  presby- 
ters had  in  its  proceedings.  The  following  things 
appear  indisputable. 

1st.  The  apostles  and  presbyters  met  in  com- 
mon ;  that  is,  they  formed  but  one  assembly.  Of 
a  "  house  of  bishops,"  and  a  "  house  of  clerical 
and  lay  delegates,"  they  had  no  idea.  This  im- 
provement in  church-government  was  reserved 
for  discovery  by  those  who  have  been  trained  in 
the  school  of  the  "judicious"*  Hooker, 

*  This  appellation  was  bestowed  upon  Hooker  by  James  VI. 
who  was  delighted,  beyond  measure,  with  his  famous  work  on  ec- 
clesiastical  polity.  And  delighted  with  it  for  the  same  reason 
which,  no  doubt,  ravished  the  heart  of  Cardinal  Allen,  and  Pope 


118  Review. 

2d.  The  right  of  the  presbyters  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment with  the  apostles  upon  all  ecclesiastical  con- 
cerns, which  were  not  to  be  decided  by  special 
revelation,  was  well  understood  in  the  churches. 

The  proof  of  this  proposition  lies  in  the  very 
terms  of  the  reference  from  Antioch.  For  it  i-s 
inconceivable,  how  the  church  there  should  think 
of  submitting  a  question,  so  weighty  in  itself,  and 
so  extensive  in  its  consequences,  to  the  ''  elders," 
conjointly  with  the  "  apostles,"  if  they  had  not 
been  taught  that  presbyters  were  the  ordinary 
church  governours,  and  were  to  continue  such  af- 
ter the  decease  of  the  others.  This  explains  why 
they  went  up  with  the  apostles  to  Jerusalem.  It 
was  not  only  to  give  them  opportunities  of  infor- 
mation ;  but  also,  if  not  chiefly,  to  learn  the  pro- 
per mode  of  dispatching  the  public  business.  Be- 
fore this  council  or  synod,  composed  of  apostles 
and  elders,  was  the  interesting  reference  from 
Antioch  laid ;  by  them  was  it  discussed,  and  by 
them  decided. 

3d.  The  apostles,  on  this  occasion,  acted  simply 
as  members  of  the  synod ;  they  did  nothing  in  vir- 

Clement  the  VIII.*  viz.  that  the  principle  of  Hooker's  book,  and 
the  scope  of  his  argument,  are  to  prove  the  right  of  the  church  to 
model  her  government  as  she  shall  judge  for  edification.  We  shall 
touch  this  subject  again.  Does  not  the  reader  suppose  that  this 
must  be  a  truly  Protestant  work,  Avhich  excited  the  admiration  and 
rapture  of  the  pope  and  his  cardinals ! 

*  Hooker's  life,  p.  78,  79.     Works,  vol,  1.  8vo. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  119 

tue  of  their  extraordinary,  which  was  their  apos- 
tohcal,  character,  nor  introduced  into  the  dehbe- 
rations  of  the  assembly,  any  influence  but  that  of 
facts  ;  of  the  written  scripture ;  and  of  reasoning 
founded  on  the  comparison  of  both.  All  this  is 
evident  from  the  narrative  in  the  fifteenth  chapter 
of  the  Acts  ;  and  resulted  from  the  nature  of  the 
case.  Had  the  question  been  to  be  determined 
by  special  revelation  or  apostolic  authority,  one  in- 
spired man,  or  one  apostle,  would  have  answered 
as  well  as  a  dozen.  The  dispute  might  have  been 
settled  on  the  spot,  and  by  Paul  himself  Had 
there  arisen  any  doubt  of  his  power,  or  distrust  of 
his  integrity,  a  hundred  miracles,  if  necessary, 
would  instantly  have  removed  the  obstacle.  In 
every  view,  the  embassy  to  Jerusalem  would  have 
been  an  useless  parade. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  apostles  acted  in  a  douhh 
capacity.  They  had  that  authority  which  w^as  de- 
signed to  be  ordinary  and  perpetual,  such  as 
preaching  the  word,  administering  the  sacraments, 
and  governing  the  church.  But  superadded  to 
this,  they  had  also  the  authority  of  special  mes- 
sengers for  extraordinary  and  temporary  pur- 
poses. If  a  new  church  was  to  be  founded  among 
the  nations — if  any  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  was  to 
be  revealed — if  a  particular  emergency  required 
a  particular  interposition ;  in  these  and  similar 
cases,  their  extraordinary  character  found  its  pro- 
per objects :  they   "  spake  as  they  were  moved 


120  Review. 

by  the  Holy  Ghost :"  their  judgment  was  infalli- 
ble, and  their  authority  paramount.  But  for  the 
ordinary  government  of  the  church,  or  any  part  of 
it,  they  do  not  appear  to  have  enjoyed  these  ex- 
traordinary communications  of  the  divine  spirit ; 
nor  to  have  exerted  their  extraordinary  powers ; 
nor  to  have  claimed  a  particle  of  authority  above 
the  presbyters.  Without  such  a  distinction  as 
we  have  now  stated,  their  history  is  a  tissue  of 
inconsistencies,  and  their  conduct  in  the  synod  of 
Jerusalem  must  be  given  up  as  a  riddle  that  baffles 
solution. 

Seeing,  therefore,  that  in  the  apostohc  epistles 
and  salutations  to  the  churches,  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  prelates,  although  there  is  frequent  men- 
tion of  presbyters  and  deacons — that  presbyters 
are  formally  addressed  as  possessing  the  power  of 
government — and  that  they  actually  did  exercise 
it  in  matters  of  the  highest  moment,  the  advocate 
for  diocesan  episcopacy  must  adduce  scriptural 
facts  to  support  him  under  the  depressing  weight 
of  all  these  considerations.  As  he  maintains  that 
prelates  are  at  least  of  apostohc  origin ;  and  that 
they  alone  succeeded  the  apostles  in  the  powers  of 
ordination  and  government,  his  facts  must  not 
only  be  plausible  when  detached  from  their  place 
and  bearings  in  the  Christian  history,  and  when 
decorated  with  appendages  of  his  own  imagina- 
tion ;  but  they  must  accord  with  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  with  its  narrative ;  they 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  121 

must  be  so  decisive  as  to  annihilate  the  foregoing 
difficuhies  ;  and  must  not  admit  of  a  fair  and  ra- 
tional explanation  upon  Presbyterian  principles. 
With  such  facts,  he  tells  us,  he  is  ready  to  con- 
front us.  Our  curiosity  is  awake  :  let  us  look  at 
them  without  further  delay. 

He  refers  us  for  one  fact,  to  that  same  synod  of 
Jerusalem  which  we  have  just  left.  We  must  go 
back  again. 

"  If  from  Crete,"  says  Cyprian,  "  we  pass  to  Jerusalem,  we 
shall  there  discover  equally  striking  evidence*  that  St.  James, 
the  brother  of  our  Lord,  possessed  in  that  place  the  pre-emi- 
nence of  a  bishop  in  the  church.  In  the  first  council  that  was 
held  there,  in  order  to  determine  the  controversy  which  had 
arisen  in  regard  to  the  circumcision  of  Gentile  converts,  we 
find  him  pronouncing  an  authoritative  sentence.  His  sentence, 
we  remark  also,  determined  the  controversy.  "  Wherefore  iny 
sentence  is,  says  he,  that  we  trouble  not  tiiose  who  from  among 
the  Gentiles  are  turned  unto  God."  In  Acts  xxi.  17  and  18, 
we  are  told,  *'  that  when  St.  Paul  and  his  company  were  come 
to  Jerusalem,  the  brethren  received  him  sjladly ;  and  that  the 
next  day  following,  Paul  went  iii  with  them  unto  James,  and 
all  the  Elders  or  Presbyters  were  present."  Acts  xii.  17,  it  is 
said,  that  "Peter,  after  he  had  declared  to  the  Christians  to 
whom  he  went,  his  miraculous  deliverance,  bade  them  go  and 

*  What  this  "  striking  evidence"  is,  remains  to  be  seen  here- 
after. We  shall  reduce  the  out-works  of  the  hierarchy  before  we 
close  in  upon  her  citadel.  This  is  the  Episcopal  character  of  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus,  as  her  chieftains  confess,  as  their  anxiety  to  de- 
fend it  sufficiently  indicates,  even  without  their  confession.  In 
the  mean  time,  we  believe  Cyprian  to  be  pretty  correct  in  making 
the  evidence  for  the  episcopate  of  James  at  Jerusalem,  to  be 
''equally  striking"  with  that  of  Titus's  at  Crete.  For  we  hope 
to  prove  that  in  both  cases  it  amounts  to  just  nothing  at  all ! 
Vol.  III.  16 


122  Review. 

show  these  things  to  James  and  to  the  brethren."  In  Gala- 
tians  ii.  12,  St.  Paul  says,  "  that  certain  came  from  James," 
that  is,  from  the  church  of  Jerusalem  to  the  church  of  Antioch. 
Surely  these  passages  strongly  indicate  that  James  held  the 
highest  dignity  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  The  brethren 
carry  Paul  and  his  company  to  him  as  to  a  supreme  officer. 
He  has  presbyters  and  deacons  in  subordination  to  him.  When 
messengers  are  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  other  churches,  it  is 
not  done  in  the  name  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  or  of 
the  church  of  this  place  ;  it  is  done  in  the  name  of  James.  Do 
not  these  considerations  prove  James  was  the  supreme  ruler 
'of  that  church  1" 

The  first  argument  of  Cyprian  for  the  episcopal 
pre-eminence  of  James,  is,  that  he  pronounced  in 
the  synod  of  Jerusalem,  '•  an  authoritative  sentence  ;" 
and  that  "  his  sentence  determined  the  controver- 
sy." The  proof  is,  that  expression  in  his  speech 
to  the  council,  "Wherefore,  my  sentence  is,  that 
we  trouble  not  those  who  from  among  the  Gen- 
tiles are  turned  unto  God."     Acts  xv.  19. 

We  are  under  the  necessity  of  objecting,  for  the 
third  time,  to  these  writers,  that  they  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  person  whom  they  quote,  declara- 
tions which  he  never  uttered.  They  will  make 
James  dehver  an  authoritative  sentence  as  the 
bishop  of  Jerusalem.  They,  perhaps,  could  not 
help  themselves,  as  they  have  only  followed  their 
file  leaders.  Potter  had  said  the  same  thing;  and 
they  took  it  as  they  found  it.  But  the  editor  of 
Lycophron^  and  author  of  the  "  Antiquities  of 
Greece,"  was  "  a  scholar,  and  a  ripe  and  good 
one."     He  knew  that  he  was  standing  on  slippery 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  123 

ground ;  and  so  to  save  his  own  reputation,  he 
sHly  fathers  his  construction  of  James's  words  up- 
old  Hesychius.* 

But  in  opposition  to  Cyprian,  and  the  Layman, 
and  archbishop  Potter,  and  Hesychius  too,  we 
shall  show, 

1.  That  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  of 
James,  from  which  it  can  be  inferred  that  he,  as 
the  superiour  officer,  pronounced  an  authoritative 
sentence^  and, 

2.  That  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  pronounce 
such  a  sentence. 

ThQ  first  point  is  to  be  settled  by  a  critical  ex- 
amination of  his  phraseology.  His  words  are, 
Jlo  eyio  KPINS2,  which  our  translators  have  ren- 
dered "  Wherefore  my  sentence  ^^." 

The  primitive  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  discri- 
minate^ to  separate^  to  select^  to  arrange.  Thus 
Homer, 

— A>)aiirv]^ 
KPINEI,  fifl'sjyojxsvwv  avsfjowv  KAPIION  rs  xai  AXNA2. 

II.  E.  501. 

'^Separates,  by  the  winds,  the  chaf  from  the 
wheat.'''' 

*  Discourse  on  Church  Government,  p.  91.  In  a  note,  the  learn- 
ed prelate  cites  Hesychius  as  thus  distinguishing — "  Peter  addresses 
the  council ;  but  James  enacts  the  law."  ntrpo?  irjixrjyopa,  aXX'  IokuSos 
vofioOtrei.  Potter's  precaution  passed  unobserved.  The  reason 
probably  is,  that  it  was  locked  up  in  the  quotation  from  Hesychius, 
♦*  Gracum  est;  et  nan  potest  legi!'^  said  the  Trojans  oi  Oxford, 
whenever  a  line  of  Greek  came  in  their  way. 


124  Review. 


KPINA2  r'ava  5yi(Xov  a^titvg. 

Od.  A.  666. 

^^  Selecting  the  most  valiant  throughout  the 
people." 

KPIN'  av(5^a5  xara  (puXa.  II.  B.  362. 

"  Arrange  the  men  according  to  their  nations." 
From  this  primitive  notion,  the  word,  by  a  very 
natural  transition,  came  to  signify  the  formation 
of  an  opinion,  or  judgment,  and  the  expression  of 
it  when  formed,  because  no  opinion  or  judgment 
can  exist  without  a  previous  process  by  which  the 
mind  discriminates  between  its  own  perceptions. 
And  thus  the  word  is  familiarly  used  by  writers 
both  profane  and  sacred. 

fjurfej  5b  -rXsov  y)  dixji  KPINANTE2. 

u  Forming  their  opinion  rather  from  hatred  than 
justice,"  says  Thucydides  of  the  Platseans,  with 
respect  to  then  jiidg^nent  of  the  Thebans.* 

ryjv  (5iaxoo'/x>](J'iv  xa»  ra^iv  KPINEIN  ou  Tv^^ris — sjvai  xatfJcsua^fixaTa 

"  To  think  that  the  beautiful  order  of  the  uni 
verse  is  not  the  production  of  fortune."! 

TW  TOUTO  KPINE12. 

"  Why  dost  thou  think  so  ?    upon  what  ground 
art  thou  of  this  opinion  .^"J 
In  the  speech  of  Hermocrates  to  the  Syracusans, 

*  Thucyd.  III.  67.  p.  209.  ed  Dukeri. 

t  Diod.  Sk.  Lib.  xii.  84.     Tom.  I.  p.  491.  ed  mssd. 

t  Aristoph.  Plut  v.  48.  p.  9.  e<i  Kusteri. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  125 

as  recorded  by  Thucydides,  there  is  a  perfect  pa- 
rallel to  the  expression  of  James. 

"  We  shall  consult,"  says  he,  "  if  we  be  in  our 
right  minds,  not  only  our  own  immediate  inte- 
rests; but  whether  we  shall  be  able  still  to  preserve 
all  Sicily,  against  which,  in  my  judgment^  the  Athe- 
nians are  plotting."* 

The  same  use  of  the  word  is  so  common  in  the 
New  Testament,  that  examples  are  almost  super- 
fluous. We  shall,  however,  subjoin  a  few,  because 
they  will  bring  our  criticism  more  directly  within 
the  reach  of  the  unlearned  reader. 

Luke  vii.  43.  Simon  said — /  suppose  that  he  to 
whom  he  forgave  most.  And  he  said  unto  him, 
Thou  hast  rightly  judged  (oq^ojq  EKPINA:^.)  Si- 
mon's judgment  was  surely  not  an  official  one.  It 
was  simply  his  opinion^  or  conclusion.^  from  the  case 
proposed  to  him. 

John  vii.  24.  Judge  not  (Mi]  KPINETE)  ac- 
cording to  the  appearance,  but  judge  righteous  judg- 
ment (XPI-ZJiV^  JTP/iV^  TE.)  No  "authoritative 
sentence"  is  contemplated  here. 

j9cts  xii.  46.  Seeing — ye  judge  yourselves  (^KPI- 
NETE) unworthy,  8^^c. 

2  Cor.  V.  14,  15.  The  love  of  Christ  constraineth 
us,  because  we  thus  judge  {KPINANTA2  tovto,) 
kc.    "  Concerning  the  love  of  Christ,"  saith  Paul, 

*  — ov  irtpi  Twv  iSi(j)v  jxovov,  ti  aitxppovujjieVf  fj  crvvoSos  earai'  aXX'  £i  ZTn^ovXevojitvij-* 
TTjv    iraaav    StxtXiav,  i22  EFA  KPINIi,  drr'    A^J/fatwi',   ivvrjaofieQa    «ri  Siaauiaat. 

Thucyd.  iv.  60.  p.  272.  ed  Dukeri. 


126  Review, 

"  this  is  our  sentiment,  our  7node  of  reasoning,  that  if 
one  died  for  all,"  &;c. 

In  every  one  of  the  preceding  quotations,  the 
very  same  word  is  used  which  occurs  in  the  speech 
of  James,  and,  in  the  very  same  sense.  It  is  the 
plainest  Greek  imaginable  to  express  the  result  of 
one^s  reflections.  This  is  all  that  the  words  of 
James  imply.  He  spoke  among  the  last ;  he  avail- 
ed himself  of  the  discussion  which  had  already 
taken  place  :  And  when  his  opinion  was  matured, 
he  submitted  it  to  the  council  in  the  form  of  a 
temperate  and  conciUatory  proposition.  We  ask 
any  man  of  plain  sense,  to  look  over  the  chapter, 
and  say  whether  this  is  not  a  natural  and  satisfac- 
tory account  of  tlie  whole  affair.  Little  did  the 
guileless  disciple  suspect  that  his  familiar  and  in- 
nocent expression,  wpuld  be  converted,  in  these 
latter  days,  into  a  certificate  of  his  being  a  dioce- 
san bishop  !  And  had  not  the  "  proofs"  of  the 
hierarchy  been,  hke  lords'  wits,  rather  "  thinly 
sown,"  she  would  never  have  attempted  to  cull  one 
from  a  form  of  speech  which  might  have  been 
adopted  by  the  obscurest  member  of  the  council, 
with  as  much  propriety  as  by  James  himself 

We  have  neither  interest  nor  disposition  to  con- 
ceal what  is  well  known  to  even  smatterers  in 
Greek,  that  the  term  which  we  have  shown  to  be 
familiarly  used  to  signify  the  expression  of  opinion 
generally,  is  also  used,  and  with  equal  familiarity, 
in  a  more  restricted  squ^q,  oi  b.  judicial  o^miow,  or, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  127 

if  you  prefer  it,  an  "  authoritative  sentence."  But 
then  it  a\w Siys  presupposes  the  judicial  or  authorita- 
tive character  of  the  person  to  whom  it  is  apphed. 
Thus  the  senses  of  the  word  rank. 

1.  To  discriminate — to  select — to  arrange. — 
Thence, 

2.  To  form  a  judgment — to  express  an  opinion, 
— and  thence, 

3.  To  pronounce  an  official  judgment ;  or  "  an 
authoritative  sentence." 

But  Y/ho  does  not  see  that  you  must  first  know 
under  what  circumstances  a  person  is  represented 
as  speaking  or  acting,  before  you  can  determine 
whether  the  writer  intends,  by  the  word  we  are 
considering,  a  mere  selection  of  one  thing  from  a 
number  of  others  ?  or  an  opinion  as  expressed  in 
conversation  or  debate  ?  or  a  solemn  judicial  sen- 
tence ?  Had  the  prelatic  dignity  of  James  been 
first  established ;  and  had  the  synod  at  Jerusalem 
been  a  convocation  of  his  clergy^  there  would  have 
been  a  propriety  in  attributing  to  him  an  "  autho- 
ritative" decision,  and  interpreting  his  words  ac- 
cordingly. But  to  argue  from  his  "  my  sentence 
is,"  that  he  was  a  prelate,  is  completely  begging 
the  question.  The  argument  assumes  that  he  was 
the  bishop  of  Jerusalem ;  for  this  is  indispensable 
to  that  "  authority"  which  Cyprian  ascribes  to  his 
words ;  and  it  is  exactly  taking  for  granted,  the 
thing  to  be  proved. 

Another  unfortunate  circumstance  for  the  Epis- 


128  R 


evtew. 


copal  construction  of  James's  speech  is,  that  it 
contradicts  the  sacred  historian.  In  the  very  next 
chapter  he  tells  us,  that  Paul  and  Silas  delivered 
to  the  cities  through  which  they  passed,  "  the  de- 
crees for  to  keep,  that  were  ordcdned  (^KEKPI- 
MEN  A)  of  the  apostles  and  elders?''  Ch.  xvi.  4. 
Cyprian  says  that  James  pronounced  the  "  autho- 
ritative sentence."  The  inspired  historian  says, 
that  it  was  pronounced  by  the  apostles  and  elders. 
Both  cannot  be  true  ;  and  we  are  inclined  to  think 
that  the  rector  of  the  episcopal  church  in  Albany^ 
cannot  stand  in  the  judgment,  even  with  Potter 
and  Hesychius  to  back  him.  The  affront  put 
upon  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  the  more  conspicu- 
ous, as  the  term  which,  in  the  mouth  of  James,  is 
tortured  into  an  "  authoritative  sentence,"  here  oc- 
curs in  that  sense  most  unequivocally  :  because 
the  reference  from  Antioch  was  brought  before  the 
tribunal  of  tlie  apostles  and  elders.  They  were  re- 
cognized as  Judges  having  cognizance  of  the  question  ; 
and  theirs  was,  of  course,  an  authoritative  sen- 
tence. James  was,  indeed,  one  of  the  judges  ; 
he  acted  in  his  judicial  character,  but  that  cha- 
racter was  common  to  him  with  every  other 
member  of  the  council ;  and  like  theirs,  his  only 
influence  was  that  of  his  wisdom  and  his  vote. 
The  scripture,  then,  being  judge,  it  is  incontesti- 
ble,  that  he  did  NOT  pronounce  an  "  authorita- 
tive sentence." 

Our  second  position  is,  that  it  was  impossible  for 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  129 

James  to  exercise  such  a  power  as  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy  attribute  to  him.     Our  proofs  are 

these  : 

1.  The  cause  was  not  referred  to  him  ;    and 

accordingly  it  was  not  tried  in  the  court  of  "  St. 
James  ;"  but  in  the  court  of  the  "  apostles  and 
elders,"  as  the  representatives  of  the  Christian 
church. 

2.  It  could  not  be  referred  to  him  ;  nor  could 
he,  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  have  any  cognizance 
of  it ;  Antioch  being  entirely  without  his  juris- 
diction. 

3.  The  decision  of  the  council  was  received 
and  obeyed  with  alacrity  through  the  churches  of 
Asia.  But  had  it  been  pronounced  by  an  autho- 
rity so  limited  and  local  as  that  of  the  bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  the  effect  must  have  been  very  diffe- 
rent. Unless  we  should  suppose,  that  all  the  Asi- 
atic cities  through  which  Paul  and  Silas  passed, 
were  subject  to  the  see  of  Jerusalem ;  and,  then, 
we  shall  not  only  spoil  the  Episcopal  argument 
from  the  seven  angels  of  Asia  ;  but  shall  overturn 
the  whole  system  of  the  hierarchy,  as  it  is  pre- 
tended to  have  been  estabhshed  by  apostohc  or- 
dination :  because  we  shall  admit,  that,  instead  of 
fixing  bishops  at  proper  distances  for  governing 
the  church  within  convenient  dioceses,  the  apos- 
tles put  the  immense  regions  of  Asia  under  a 
spiritual  head  in  the  land  of  Judea.     Indeed,  we 

have  always  thought  it  hard,  upon  the  Episcopal 
Vol.  III.  17 


130  Review, 

plan,  that,  considering  the  importance  and  the 
wealth  of  Antioch,  not  a  hishop  could  be  mus- 
tered for  that  distinguished  city  ;  but  she  must 
go  for  direction  all  the  way  to  the  prelate  of  Je- 
rusalem ! 

4.  The  assembly  in  which  James  delivered  his 
speech  was  not  composed  of  clergy  belonging  to 
his  diocese  ;  and,  therefore,  he  could  not,  even 
upon  episcopal  principles,  pronounce  an  "  autho- 
ritative sentence."  The  reason  is  obvious  :  he 
could  not  exercise  authority  over  those  who  were 
not  under  his  controul.  There  were  present  at 
the  council,  not  only  '•  presbyters,"  but "  apostles." 
Peter  was  there,  Paul  was  there,  and  how  many 
others,  we  do  not  know.  Had  James  then  pro- 
nounced an  "  authoritative  sentence,"  he  had  been 
above  not  only  all  the  presbyters  of  his  own  dio- 
cese, but  above  all  the  deputies  from  Antioch  ; 
above  all  the  members  of  the  council  from  what- 
ever part  of  the  world  ;  above  the  apostles  them- 
selves !  Look,  then,  at  this /ad  of  the  hierarchy. 
It  turns  the  very  apostles  into  mere  make-weights 
of  bishop  James  !  It  sets  up  an  authority  much  like 
that  of  a  visible  head  of  the  church  catholic,  than 
the  papists  have  ever  been  able  to  produce  for 
their  "  St.  Peter  !"  If  this  is  7iot  a  "  bold  stroke  " 
for  a  bishop,  pray,  gentlemen,  what  is  ?  And  if 
any  of  our  readers  can  digest  such  a  dish  of  ab- 
surdity, we  wish  him  much  comfort  of  his  meal  ! 

We  shall  not  trespass  long  upon  the  patience  of 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  131 

either  our  friends  or  our  foes,  in  disposing  of  the 
'•  remains"  of  Cyprian's  proofs.    '•  When  St.  Paul 
and  his    company  were   come  to  Jerusalem,  the 
brethren  received  him  gladly,  and  the  next  day 
following,  Paul  went  in  with  them  unto   James, 
and  all  the  elders   or  presbyters  were  present." 
It  was  rather  rustic  in  Paul  not  to  pay  his   court 
to  the  bishop  ^/'5/.     We  have  learnt,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  some  mortification,  that  in  New-York 
any  communication   w^ith  the    clergy,  on   eccle- 
siastical matters,  except  through  the  medium  of 
the   bishop,   is   an   invasion  of  episcopal  order. 
But  Paul  must  be  pardoned   for  committing  an 
oversight,  especially  as  Cyprian,  to  be  even  with 
him,  has  done  so  too.     He  has   stopped  at  that 
part  of  the   narrative,   which,  in  his  eyes,  holds 
James  forth  in  something  of  bishop-like  majesty, 
and  forgot  to  tell  the  rest  of  the  story.  The  reader, 
no  doubt,  would  expect  to  hear  of  a  very  pointed 
conference   between  James   and  the  apostle,  all 
the  presbyters  listening  with  due  humility  to  their 
superiours  ;  but  if  he  turn  to  the  history,  (Acts 
xxi.)  he  will  find  these  same  presbyters  most  un- 
civilly  advising  the    apostle  ;  and   w^hat  is   still 
worse,  telling  him  that  they  had  decided  the  re- 
ference from  Antioch.    Cyprian  asserts  that  James 
made  the  de<:ision.     They,  on  the  contrary,  have 
the  assurance  to  tell  the  apostle  Paul,  in  the  pre- 


132  Review, 

sence  of  James  himself,  that  the  presbyters  had 
decided  it.  And  all  this  while  not  a  word  of  hishop 
James  !  In  the  following  ages  the  presbyters 
were  taught  better  manners. 

But  then,  it  seems,  that  after  Peter's  "  miracu- 
lous deliverance,  he  bade  the  Christians  go  and 
show  these  things  to  James,  and  to  the  breth- 
ren"— Also,  that  "  certain  came  from  James, 
that  is,  from  the  church  of  Jerusalem  to  the 
church  of  Antioch."  Therefore,  James  was 
bishop  of  Jerusalem  !  Very  sagely  and  conclu- 
sively reasoned  !  As  if  such  things  did  not  hap- 
pen every  day  in  places  where  there  are  ministers 
of  the  gospel  distinguished  by  their  talent  or 
standing.  The  writer  of  this  review  stepped  the 
other  evening  into  the  house  of  that  venerable 
Christian  veteran,  the  Reverend  Dr.  Rodgers,  and 
found  there  "  certain  brethren"  who  had  just 
come  from  one  of  their  judicatories.  It  is  quite 
common  for  people  to  talk  of  Dr.  Rodgers'  send- 
ing ministers  to  preach  ;  and  even  to  designate 
his  denomination  as  Dr.  Rodgers'  church  !  There- 
fore Dr.  Rodgers  is  bishop  of  New-York  ;  and 
primate  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  North- 
America  !  ! 

"  Thus  endeth  the  first  lesson,"  which  is  con- 
cerning Cyprian's  "  striking  evidence"  that  James 
was  bishop  of  Jerusalem. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy, 


133 


Having  disposed  of  the  see  of  Jerusalem, 
which  had  been  gratuitously  conferred  on  James, 
we  proceed  to  the  argument  in  favour  of  Diocesan 
Episcopacy,  from  the  epistles  addressed,  in  the 
book  of  the  Revelation,  to  the  seven  churches  of 
Asia.  We  give  it  in  the  words  of  Cyprian.  And 
as  it  may  possibly  amuse  the  reader,  while  it  con- 
vinces him  that  we  were  correct  in  saying  that 
Archbishop  Potter  is  one  of  the  real  authors  un- 
der the  signatures  of  Cyprian^  &lc.  we  shall  put  his 
Grace  of  Canterbury  side  by  side  with  our  Albany 
friend. 


POTTEB 


"  St.  John,  in  the  three 
first  chapters  of  his  Revela- 
tion, has  given  us  a  Hvely  de- 
scription of  seven  bishops 
who  presided  in  the  seven 
principal  cities  of  the  pro-con- 
sular Asia.  Our  Lord  is  there 
introduced,  sendino^  seven 
epistles  to  the  seven  churches 
of  these  cities,  directed  to  the 
seve7i  angels  of  the  churches, 
whom  he  calls  the  seven  stars 
in  his  right  hand.  Now  if  it 
appears  that  the  seven  angels 


Cyprian. 
•^^  In  the  three  first  chap- 
ters of  the  Revelations  of  St. 
John,  we  find  absolute  demon- 
stration of  the  existence  of 
the  Episcopal  dignity  and  au- 
thority, at  the  time  in  which 
this  work  was  written.  In 
these  chapters,  St.  John  gives 
us  a  description  of  the  seven 
Bishops,  who  superintended 
the  interests  of  the  church  in 
the  seven  principal  cities  in 
the  Pro-Consular  Asia.  Our 
Lord  is  represented  as  sending 
seven  Epistles  to  the  seven 
churches  of  these  cities,  di- 
rected to  the  seven  angels  of 
the  churches,  whom  he  calls 
the  "  seven  stars  in  his  right 
hand."     From  all  the  circuna* 


134 


Review. 


Potter. 
were  so  many  single  persons 
invested  with  supreme  autho- 
rity in  the  seven  churches, 
there  can  be  no  reason  to 
doubt,  whether  they  were  the 
bishops  of  these  churches  ;  a 
bishop  being  nothing  else  but 
one  who  has  chief  authority 
in  the  church. 

"  Let  us  examine  in  the 
Jii'st  place,  whether  the  seven 
angels  were  so  many  single 
persons  1  And  first  of  all,  it 
is  manifest  they  were  not  the 
whole  church  or  collective 
body  of  Christians  in  their 
several  cities  ;  because  the 
churches  are  represented  by 
seven  candlesticks^  which  are 
all  along  distinguished  from 
the  seven  stars,  which  are  em- 
blems of  the  angels.  Neither 
were  they  any  select  number 
or  body  of  men  :  For  they  are 
constantly  mentioned  as  sin- 
gle persons  ;  the  angel  of  the 
church  of  Ephesus,  the  angel 
of  the  church  of  Smyrna,  and 
so  the  rest." 


"  Accordingly,  both  he  and 
all  the  rest  are  constantly  ad- 
dressed to  in  the  singular 
number  ;  I  know  thy  works, 
I  have  a  few  things  against 
thee,  remember  how  thou  hast 


Cyprian. 
stances  that  are  mentioned,  it 
undeniably  appears  that  these 
seven  angels  were  so  many 
single  persons,  invested  with 
supreme  authority  in  the 
churches  ;  that  is  to  say,  they 
were  the  bishops  of  those 
churches. 

"  I  say  it  manifestly  ap- 
pears, that  these  seven  angels 
of  the  churches,  whom  the 
Lord  calls  the  "  seven  stars" 
in  his  right  hand,  were  single 
persons.  They  were  not  the 
whole  church  or  collective 
body  of  Christians.  This  is 
proved  incontestably  from 
these  considerations.  The 
whole  Churches,  or  collective 
body  of  Christians,  are  repre- 
sented by  "  seven  candle- 
sticks," which  are  distinguish- 
ed from  the  "  seven  stars," 
that  are  emblems  of  the  An- 
gels, the  Bishops.  They  are 
constantly  mentioned  in  the 
singular  number.  "  The  An- 
gel of  the  Church  of  Ephe- 
sus"— "  the  Angel  of  the 
Church  of  Smyrna,"  and  so 
of  the  rest. 

And  in  the  epistle  to  Thyatira 
it  is  said,  "  I  know  thy  works." 
"  I  have  a  few  things  against 
thee."  "  Remember  how  thou 
hast  heard."  "  Thou  hast 
kept    the    word    of    my    pa- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy. 


135 


Potter. 
heard,  thou  hast  kept  the  word 
of  my  patience,  and  so  in  the 
rest,  where  our  Lord  speaks  to 
them  in  particular  :  But  when 
what  he  writes  equally  con- 
cerns the  people,  he  changes 
his  style,  and  speaks  in  the 
plural  :  The  devil  shall  cast 
some  of  yow  into  prison.  Thou 
hast  not  denied  my  faith  when 
Antipas  my  faithful  martyr 
was  slain  among  you.  I  will 
reward  every  one  of  you  ac- 
cording to  your  works.  That 
which  ye  have,  hold  fast  till 
I  come.  Which  variation  of 
the  number,  is  a  plain  argu- 
tijent  that  some  parts  of  these 
Epistles  relate  to  the  whole 
churches,  and  others  only  to 
the  persons  of  the  angels.'^'' 

"  But  there  is  one  thing  yet 
behind,  which  will  put  this 
matter  beyond  dispute  :  name- 
ly, that  the  titles  of  angels  and 
stars  are  constantly  applied  in 
this  book  of  Revelation  to  sin- 
gle men  :  Our  Lord  is  called 
the  Morning  Star,  and  the 
Sun,  and  the  apostles  are  call- 
ed twelve  stars,  and  twelve  an- 
gels ;  but  there  is  not  one  ex- 
ample where  these  titles  are 
given  to  any  society  or  number 
of  men.  So  that  if  we  will  al- 
low the  divine  author  of  this 
book  to  speak  in  this  place,  as 
he  does  in  all  others,  the  angels 


Cyprian. 

tience."  This  is  the  style 
which  is  used  when  the  Anael 

o 

or  Bishop  of  the   Church    is 

addressed. 

But  when  what  is  said  relates 
to  the  people,  the  style  is  al- 
tered, the  plural  number  is 
then  used.  •'  The  devil  shall 
cast   some    of  you    into   pri- 


"  I  will  reward  every  one  of 
you  according  to  your  works. 
That  which  ye  have,  hold  fast 
till  I  come."  And  this  vari- 
ation in  the  number,  proves 
that  some  parts  of  these  Epis- 
tles relate  to  the  ivhole  Church, 
and  others  only  to  the  Angels, 


But  what  places  this  subject 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  is 
this  circumstance  :  The  titles 
of  Angels  and  stars  are  con- 
stantly applied  in  the  book  of 
Revelation  to  single  men,  and 
never  to  a  society  or  number  of 
men.  Our  Lord  is  called  the 
"  morning  star  and  the  sun," 
and  the  twelve  Apostles  are 
called  "  twelve  stars,"  and 
"  twelve  Angels." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
the  seven  stars  or  Angels  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  are  single 
persons. 


136 


Review, 


Potter. 
of  the  seven  churches  can  be 
none  but  single  persons. 

"  The  next  thing  to  be  made 
out  is,  that  these  single  per- 
sons were  men  of  chief  autho- 
rity in  their  several  churches. 
And  we  might  safely  conclude 
they  were  so,  though  we  had 
no  other  proof  of  it,  because 
our  Lord  has  directed  to  them 
the  Epistles,  which  he  designed 
for  the  use  of  their  churches. 
But  there  are  several  other  ar- 
guments, which  prove  that  the 
angels  were  men  of  eminent 
station  and  authority :  For 
whereas  the  churches  are  on- 
ly called  candlesticks,  the  an- 
gels are  resembled  to  stars, 
which  give  light  to  the  c«w- 
dlesticks.''^ 


*'  They  are  praised  for  all  the 
good,  and  blamed  for  all  the 
evil  which  happened  in  their 
churches.  The  angel  of  "Ephe- 
sus  is  commended,  because  he 
could  not  bear  them  that  were 
evil,  and  had  tried  those  zvho 
called  themselves  Apostles,  and 
tcere  not  so  ;  which  seems  to 
imply,  that  he  had  judicially 
convicted  them  to  be  impostors. 
And  the  angel  of  Pergamos 
is  reproved  for  having  them 
who  hold  the  doctrine  of  Ba- 
laam ;  that  is,  the  Nicolaitans, 
who    allowed    themselves    to 


Cyprian. 


That  these  persons  possess- 
ed supreme  authority  in  the 
Churches,  is  also  demonstra- 
ted from  these  considerations. 


These  Epistles  are  addressed 
to  them  alone. 


The  Churches  are  called 
candlesticks,  and  they  the 
stars  which  give  light  to  the 
candlesticks. 


The  seven  angels  are  prais- 
ed for  all  the  good  which  they 
had  done,  and  blamed  for  all 
the  evil  which  happened  in  the 
Churches.  The  Angel  of 
Ephesus  is  commended  be- 
cause "  he  could  not  bear  them 
that  were  evil,  and  had  tried 
those  who  called  themselves 
Apostles,  and  were  not  so," 
which  seems  to  imply  that  he 
had  convicted  them  of  impos- 
ture. The  Angel  of  Perga- 
mos is  reproved  for  having 
them  "  who  hold  the  doctrine 
of  Balaam,  and  he  is  severely 


Essays  on  Episcopacy. 


137 


Potter. 
commit  fornication^  and  to  eat 
things  sacrificed  to  idols  ;  and 
he  is  severely  threatened,  un- 
less he  repented:  which  shows 
he  had  authority  to  correct 
these  disorders,  otherwise  he 
could  not  justly  liave  beea 
punished  for  them.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  angel  of 
Thyatira,  who  is  blamed  for 
suffering  Jezebel,  ivho  called 
herself  a  prophetess,  to  teach 
and  seduce  the  people.  And 
the  angel  of  Sardis  is  com- 
manded to  be  watchful^  and  to 
strengthen  those  who  are  ready 
to  die ;  otherwise  our  Lord 
threatens  to  come  on  him,  as  a 
thief,  at  an  hour  which  he 
should  not  knmc,'''' 


Cyprian. 

threatened  unless  he  repent- 
ed." This  shows  that  he  pos- 
sessed authority  to  correct 
these  disorders,  or  he  could 
not  justly  be  menaced  with 
punishment  for  permitting 
them.  The  Angel  of  Thyatira 
also  is  blamed  for  suffering 
"  Jezebel,"  who  called  herself 
a  prophetess,  to  teach  and  se- 
duce the  people.  And  the  An- 
gel of  Sardis  is  commanded 
"  to  be  watchful,  and  to 
strengthen  those  who  are  ready 
to  die,"  otherwise  our  Lord 
threatens  to  come  on  him  "  as 
a  thief ;  at  an  hour  which  he 
should  not  know." 


The  writers  under  review,  having  a  great  con- 
tempt for  all  reasoning  from  names^  promised  to 
intrench  themselves  within  scriptural /ac/^.  One 
of  their  facts  they  find  in  the  history  of  the  "  stars" 
or  "  angels"  of  the  seven  churches.  Yet  if  the 
reader  shall  attentively  inspect  their  argument, 
which  we  have  placed  before  him  in  its  full 
strength,  he  will  perceive  that  it  rests  entirely  upon 
their  interpretation  of  two  names.  These  are. 
"  angel"  and  "  star:"  which,  in  the  symbolical 
language  of  the  scripture,  are  as  really  names  of 
office,  as  bishop,  presbyter,  deacon,  are  in  its  al- 
phabetical or  common  language.     The  aspect  of 

Vol.  III.  18 


1 38  Review. 

the  fact  changes  with  the  construction  of  these 
two  symbols.  You  must  fix  their  sense  before 
you  can  tell  what  the  fact  is.  Unless  you  can 
prove  that  "  star'  and  •'  angel"  necessarily  de- 
note individuals,  and  such  individuals  as  dioce- 
san bishops,  the  fact,  instead  of  being  for  the  hie- 
rarchy, will  be  against  her.  And  thus  her  advo- 
cates, under  the  pretext  of  "  absolute  demonstra- 
tion," put  us  off  with  what  they  themselves  have 
again  and  again  declared  to  be  "  miserable 
sophistry" — "  the  old  and  wretched  sophistry  of 
names." 

Let  us,  however,  examine  this,  their  "  absolute 
demonstration"  of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  It  turns, 
as  we  just  now  said,  upon  the  interpretation  of  the 
symbohcal  titles,  "  angel"  and  "  star."  These, 
our  prelatical  friends  maintain,  '»  are  constantly  ap- 
plied in  the  book  of  Revelation  to  single  men^  and 
never  to  a  society  or  number  of  meny  Such  is  the 
assertion — now  for  the  proof 

*'  The  whole  churches,  or  collective  bodies  of  Christians,  are 
represented  by  "  seven  candlesticks,"  which  are  distinguished 
from  the  "  seven  stars,"  that  are  emblems  of  the  angels,  the 
bishops." 

The  distinction  is  admitted  :  but  it  is  equally 
marked  upon  the  Presbyterian  plan.  For  the  col- 
lective body  of  the  ministry  is  quite  as  distinguish- 
able from  their  churches,  as  the  bishops  alone  can 
be.     Nothing  is  gained  here.     We  go  on. 

*'  They,"  the  angels, "  are  constantly  mentioned  in  the  sin- 
gular number." 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  139 

What  then  ?  Does  this  prove  that  the  singular 
term  "  angel"  has  never  a  collective  sense  ? 

What  next  ?  Nothing  at  all.  Let  out  readers 
examine,  again,  the  whole  of  v^hat  Cyprian  has 
said  upon  this  point,  and  if  they  can  detect,  in  the 
multitude  of  his  words,  and  his  show  of  illustration, 
any  thing  more  than  his  mere  assertion,  we  shall 
be  disappointed. 

The  stars  and  angels,  says  he,  are  distinguished 
from  the  churches.  True — but  they  may  be  so 
without  being  diocesan  bishops 

"  They  are  constantly  mentioned  in  the  singular 
number" — which  is  not  true.  And  if  it  were,  the 
question  still  is,  whether  the  symbolical  term  in  the 
singular  number  must  necessarily  signify  only  a 
single  person — O  yes,  says  Cyprian,  most  undoubt- 
edly. "  What  places  this  subject  beyond  all  rea- 
sonable doubt,  is  this  circumstance.  The  titles 
of  angels  and  stars  are  constantly  apphed  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  to  single  men,  and  never  to  a 
society  or  number  of  men  !"  Now  this  is  exactly 
the  thing  to  be  proved. 

Amphora  ccepit 
Institui :  currente  rota  cur  urceus  exit  ? 

Cyprian  sets  out  with  a  threat  of  "  absolute 
demonstration,"  and  leaves  off  with  begging  the 
question.* 

*  Potter,  in  his  zeal  to  make  out  the  prelatic  character  of  these 
angels,  presses  into  his  service  a  various  reading.     '« If,"  says  he, 


140  Review, 

That  the  assertions  which  Cyprian  has  bor- 
rowed from  Potter,  are  not  accompanied  with 
quite  an  "  absolute  demonstration,"  may  be  ga- 
thered from  the  light  in  which  they  are  considered 
by  Episcopal  writers  no  way  inferiour  to  Potter 
himself. 

"  Methinks,"  says  Dr.  Henry  More^  "  it  is  ex- 
tremely harsh  to  conceit  that  these  seven  stars 
are  merely  the  seven  bishops  of  any  particular 
churches  of  Asia^  as  if  the  rest  were  not  sup- 
ported nor  guided  by  the  hand  of  Christ ;  or  as 
if  there  were  but  seven  in  his  right  hand,  but  all 
the  rest  in  his  left.     Such  high  representations 

"  in  the  epistle  to  Thyatira,  instead  of  [rtjv  ywaiKa  u^e^n\)  the  woman 
Jezebel,  we  read  {TrjvyvvaiKa  aov  u^ejSriX,)  thy  wife  Jezebel,  as  it  is  in 
St.  Cyprian,  the  Syriac  version,  the  Alexandrian,  and  several 
other  manuscript  copies,  then  the  Angel  of  Thyatira  was  a  married 
man,  and  consequently  but  one  person."* 

Learning,  when  not  well  directed,  falls  into  absurdities  which 
plain  sense  avoids.  It  is  hard  for  a  man  to  suspect  himself  of  blun- 
dering when  he  is  displaying  his  erudition.  But  on  this  occasion, 
the  eyes  of  Potter  seem  to  have  been  blinded  by  the  dust  of  his 
manuscripts.  If  we  adopt  his  reading,  and  make  "  Jezebel"  a 
literal  woman,  by  making  her  the  wife  of  the  prelate  of  Thyatira, 
the  symbolical  or  figurative  sense  of  the  text  is  gone.  And  in  or- 
der to  be  consistent,  the  crimes  charged  upon  her  must  also  be 
literal.  Thus  we  shall  not  only  have  my  lady  of  Thyatira  an  open 
adulteress  ;  but  the  diocese  a  huge  brothel  under  her  inspection  ; 
where  by  example  and  by  precept,  she  initiates  her  husband's  flock 
in  the  mysteries  of  lewdness  and  idolatry.  A  goodly  occupation 
for  the  spouse  of  a  diocesan  !  Bad  times,  one  would  think,  for  an 
angel-bishop  ;  and  not  the  most  flattering  compliment  to  episcopal 
discipline- 

*  Discourse  of  Church  government,  p.  145,  3d  edit. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  141 

cannot  be  appropriated  to  any  seven  particu- 
lar CHURCHES  WHATSOEVER."  Again,  "  By  an- 
gels^ according  to  the  apocalyptick  style,  all  the 
agents  under  their  presidency  are  represented 
or  insinuated — and  it  is  so  frequent  and  obvious 
in  the  Apocalypse^  that  none  that  is  versed  there- 
in can  any  ways  doubt  of  it."* 

The  great,  and  justly  celebrated  Joseph  Mede^ 
observes,  that  "  Angels,  by  a  mode  of  speaking 
not  uncommon  in  this  book,  are  put  for  the 
nations  over  which  they  were  thought  to  preside. 
Which  appears  hence,  that  they  who,  by  the 
mjunction  of  the  oracle,  are  loosed^  are  armies  of 
cavalry  sent  forth  to  slaughter  men."t 

Just  after  he  adds,  "  the  four  angels^  (Rev.  ix. 
14,)  "  signify  so  many  Sultanies  or  kingdoms."^ 

Dr.  Fulk^  in  his  answer  to  the  Rhemish  Testa- 
ment, remarks,  that  "  St.  John,  by  the  angels  of 
the  churches,  meaneth  not  all  that  should  wear 
on  their  heads  mitres.,  and  hold  crosier-staves  in 
iheir  hands,  like  dead  idols,  but  them  that  are ' 
Faithful  messengers  of  God's  word,  and  utter 
ind  declare  the   same.      They  are    called   the 

*  Exposition  of  the  seven  churches,  Works ,  p.  724. 

f  Augeli  ponuntur  pro  gentibus  quibus  praeesse  credebantur, 
non  inusitata  in  hoc  libro  metonymia.  Id  ex  eo  apparet,  quod 
qui  contiuuo  ex  oraculi  prsescripto  solvuntur,  Exercitus  Equestres 
sunt,  hominibus  oceideudis  emissi.  In  Apocap.  B.  III.  Tub.  VI. 
Works,  p.  471. 

X  Angeli  quatuor  totidem  Sultanias  seu  regna  significant.    Ibid. 


142  Review. 

Jlngels  of  the  churches  because  they  are  God^s  mes- 


seno-ersy^ 


The  famous  StilUngfleet^  in  his  Irenicum,  asks, 
concerning  these  angels,  "  If,  in  the  prophetick 
style,  any  unity  may  be  set  down  by  way  of  re- 
presentation of  a  multitude  ;  what  evidence  can 
be  brought  from  the  fiame^  that  by  it  some  one 
particular  person  must  be  understood  ?" — And 
a  little  further  he  says,  "  If  many  things  in  the 
Epistles  be  direct  to  the  angels,  but  yet  so  as  to 
concern  the  whole  body,  then  of  necessity,  the 
angel  must  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  the 
whole  body,  and  then,  why  may  not  the  word 
angel  be  taken  by  way  of  representation  of  the 
body  itself;  either  of  the  whole  church,  or,  which 
is  far  more  probable,  of  the  Consessus,  or  order 
of  Presbyters  in  that  church  ?  We  see  what 
miserable,  unaccountable  arguments  those  are, 
which  are  brought  for  any  kind  of  government, 
from  metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expressions  or 
names  promiscuously  used."t 


*  This  and  the  following  quotation,  are  from  the  Appendix  to 
Ay  ton's  Original  Constitution  of  the  Christian  Church. 

f  It  is  the  fashion  with  the  Jure  diviiio  prelatists  to  decry  this 
■work  of  Stillingfleet  as  the  production  of  his  juvenile  days  ;  and 
as  being  recanted  by  him  in  maturer  life.  The  true  reason  of 
their  dislike  to  it  is,  that  it  has  sorely  gravelled  them  from  the 
date  of  its  publication  till  the  present  hour,  and  is  likely  to  gravel 
them  in  all  time  hereafter.  We  cannot,  however,  see  what  the 
age  or  the  recantation  of  the  author,  (if  he  did  recant,)  has  to  do 
with  the  question,  any  further  than  as  it  may  be  influenced  by  his 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  143 

We  quote  these  passages,  not  to  make  them 
our  own,  but  to  show  that  Episcopal  writers  of 
the  highest  reputation,  entertain  opinions  very 
different  from  those  of  Potter  and  Cyprian,  as  to 
the  evidence  which  the  apocalyptic  angels  give 
in  favour  of  their  hierarchy  : 

"  It  is  absolute  demonstration,"  says  Cyprian. 
"  It  is  a  harsh  conceit,"  says  Dr.  H.  More, 

^'  The  titles  of  angels  and  stars  are  never  ap- 
plied," says  Cyprian  after  Potter,  "  to  a  society 
or  number  of  men."     They  signify   "  them  that 

private  opiniou.  "  Old  men  are  not  always  wise  ;"  nor  do  green 
years  detract  from  the  force  of  argument.  Facts  and  reasonings 
having  no  dependence  upon  a  writer's  7iame,  stand  or  fall  in  their 
own  strength.  It  is  one  thing  to  recant,  and  quite  another  to  re- 
fute. The  learned,  but  unhappy  Whitby,  who,  in  his  comraeuta- 
ry  on  the  New  Testament,  had  zealously  defended  the  divinity 
and  atonement  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  left  a  work  behind  him 
entitled  'Yor^pat  (ppovTiSeg,  or  After  Thoughts,  in  which  he  denied 
both.  Yet  his  proofs  of  his  previous  belief  remain  unanswered 
by  himself,  and  unanswerable  by  any  other  man.  We  see  that 
it  is  very  possible  for  great  and  learned  men  to  change  for  the 
worse.  Therefore,  although  Stillingfleet,  Avhether  of  his  own  ac- 
cord, or  by  yielding  to  the  teazings  and  menaces  of  others,  did  re- 
tract the  doctrines  of  his  Irenicuni,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  his 
facts  and  reasonings  are  false,  or  that  he  himself  drew  nearer  to 
the  truth.  He  renounced  the  Irenicum,  the  prelatists  cry^ — Good. 
Did  he  answer  it  ?  we  ask.  Howbeit,  since  Dr.  Hobart  has  re- 
presented himself  and  his  brother-writers,  as  youug  men,  and 
even  *'  striplings  ;"  who  knows,  but,  upon  their  arriving  at  maturi- 
ty, when  they  shall  have  sown  their  intellectual  "  wild  oats,"  their 
opinion  may  change  in  a  direction  contrary  to  that  of  the  bishop 
of  Worcester,  and  that  they  may  yet  ripen  into  excellent  Presby- 
terians ? 


144  Review, 

are  the  faithful  messengers  of  God's  word  ;"  an- 
swers Dr.  Fulk — They  "  are  put  for  the  nations 
over  which  they  were  thought  to  preside,"  adds 
the  venerable  Mede — More  follows  again,  with  a 
declaration,  "  That  no  man  versed  in  the  apoca- 
lyptical style,  can  any  wise  doubt  that  by  "  angels'- 
all  the  agents  under  their  presidency  are  repre- 
sented." And  Stillingfleet^  their  own  StillingfleeU 
calls  the  argument  of  the  hierarchists  from 
these  symbolical  titles,  a  "  miserable"  one  ;  thus 
avenging  the  Presbyterian  upon  them,  by  dealing 
out  to  them  in  their  own  way,  "  measure  for  mea 
sure." — 

To  which  side  the  scale  inclines,  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  discern. 

That  the  epistles  in  question  are  addressed  to 
the  persons  designated  by  "  stars"  and  "  angels," 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  imply  that  these  persons 
were  invested  with  authority  over  the  churches, 
is  freely  conceded.  It  is  also  conceded  that  "  an- 
gel" and  '•  star"  are  titles  of  office  which  belong 
exclusively  to  the  ministry.  Unless  we  greatly 
mistake,  "  stars,"  in  the  symbohcal  language,  sig- 
nify, throughout  the  whole  Bible,  "  ministers  of 
religion." 

But  we  contend  that  they  signify  ministers  ol 
religion  with  regard  to  their  general  office,^  and  not 
with  regard  to  their  relative  dignity.  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  "  star,"  the  twelve  apostles  are  "  stars" — and 
so  are  the  apostate  clergy,  figured  by  the  "  third 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  145 

part  of  the  stars,"  which  the  dragon  cast  down 
with  his  tail  to  the  earth.  Who  does  not  see,  that 
the  only  point  in  which  the  symbol  agrees  to  the 
subject  in  all  these  cases,  is  the  common  charac- 
ter of  the  religious  ministry  ;  distinction  of  rank 
being  utterly  disregarded  ?  On  this  principle,  the 
"  stars"  must  mean  the  ministers  of  the  churches 
without  discrimination ;  every  one  being  a  "  star." 
It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  discover  under  this 
emblem,  any  order  of  ministers  to  the  exclusion  of 
any  other. 

In  this  general  reasoning,  the  hierarchy  might, 
perhaps,  concur  without  much  prejudice  to  her 
cause.  She  might  insist,  that  a  symbol,  common, 
in  its  own  nature,  to  all  ministers  of  rehgion,  is  re- 
stricted, by  the  conditions  of  the  text,  to  a  single 
individual,  w^ho,  from  the  functions  ascribed  to 
him,  must  be  a  superiour  officer,  and  not  one  of  a 
college,  concessus,  or  presbytery,  having  equal 
authority. 

There  is  internal  evidence  in  the  passage  itself, 

that  this  construction,  though  ingenious  and  acute, 

cannot  be  true.     For  as  the  "  candlesticks"  are 

emblematical  of  the  churches,  and  as  there  is  but 

one  star  to  give  light  to  each  candlestick,  it  would 

follow  that  there  was  but  a  single  minister  in  each 

of  the  churches  ;  and  thus  the  Episcopalian  would 

overthrow  himself:  for  without  inferiour,  there  can 

be  no  superiour,  clergy.     Surely  he  will  not  say, 

that  the  bishop  alone  did  all  the  preaching,  gave 
Vol.  III.  19 


146  R 


evtew. 


all  the  instruction,  and  set  all  the  example :  i.  e. 
emitted  all  the  hght  on  account  of  which  ministers 
are  called  "  stars."  The  other  clergy  had  some 
share  in  these  useful  functions.  They  too  "  preach- 
ed the  word ;"  they  too,  taught  "  from  house  to 
house ;"  they  too,  "  let  their  light  shin-e  before 
others."  Now,  one  "  star"  being  appropriated  to 
one  "  church,"  as  one  candle  is  to  one  "  candle- 
stick ;"  it  follows,  from  the  nature  of  the  compari- 
son, that  as  one  candle  is  the  full  complement  of 
hght  for  one  candlestick ;  so  one  star  is  the  full 
complement  of  light  for  one  church.  But  the  light 
which  shone  in  these  churches  did  not  emanate 
from  any  individual ;  it  emanated  from  a  number 
of  individuals ;  from  the  collective  body  of  the 
ministers  of  religion.  Therefore,  the  "  star" 
which  expresses  the  whole  light  in  one  of  these 
churches,  is  a  symbol,  not  of  a  single  minister, 
but  of  her  ministry  collectively.  It  would  be  a 
darksome  diocese,  indeed,  which  should  enjoy  no 
rays  of  light  but  those  which  proceed  from  the 
bishop. 

Let  us  now  advert  to  the  other  symbol,  viz. 
"  Angel."  This  too,  the  hierarchists,  whom  we 
oppose,  say,  is  "  constantly  applied  in  the  book  of 
Revelation  to  a  single  man,  and  never  to  a  society 
or  number  of  men." 

It  looks  somewhat  uncivil  to  contradict  so  posi- 
tive an  assertion ;  but  we  must  contradict  it ;  for 
it  is  not  true.     And  if,  in  proving  it  to  be  false,  we 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  147 

prove  its  authors  either  to  be  ignorant  of  the 
scriptures,  or  wilfully  to  misrepresent  them,  we 
cannot  help  it.  One  passage  from  the  book  of 
Revelation  itself,  overturns  the  very  foundation 
upon  which  Cyprian  and  his  associates  have  reared 
their  "  absolute  demonstration." 

/  saw^  says  the  prophet,  another  angel  jiy  in  the 
midst  of  heaven^  having  the  everlasting  gospel  to 
preach   unto    them  that  dwell  on   the  earthy   and  to 

EVERY  NATION,  and  KINDRED,  and  TONGUE,  and  PEO- 
PLE.    (Rev.  xiv.  6.) 

'•  Heaven,"  in  this  book,  is  the  ascertained  sym- 
bol of  the  Christian  church,  from  which  issue  forth 
the  "  ministers  of  grace"  to  the  nations.  As  the 
gospel  is  preached  only  by  men^  this  "  angel"  who 
has  it  to  preach  to  "  every  nation,  and  kindred, 
and  tongue,  and  people,"  must  be  the  symbol  of 
a  human  ministry.  And  as  it  is  perfectly  evident 
that  no  single  man  can  thus  preach  it,  but  that 
there  must  be  a  great  company  of  preachers  to  car- 
ry it  to  "  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue, 
and  people,"  the  angel  mentioned  in  the  text  is, 
and  of  necessity  must  be,  the  symbol  of  that^rea/ 
company.  We  might  produce  other  examples; 
but  this  is  decisive.  It  shows  the  proposition  of 
Potter,  Cyprian,  (fee.  to  be  one  of  the  most  rash 
and  unfounded  assertions  into  which  the  ardour  of 
party  evet  betrayed  a  disputant. 

Assuming  it  now  as  proved,  that  the  term  "  axi 
gel"  is  applied  in  this  book  to  a  collective  body^  c 


148  Review. 

a  number  of  men  joined  in  a  common  commission, 
we  demand  the  reason  of  its  being  restricted  to  an 
individual  in  the  epistles  to  the  churches  of  Asia. 
Signifying  "  a  messenger,"  it  is  in  itself  as  appli- 
cable to  any  preacher  of  the  gospel  as  to  a  dio- 
cesan bishop.  If  he  was  of  old,  what  most  of  the 
diocesans  are  now,  he  was,  of  all  the  clergy  in  his 
diocese,  the  one  who  had  the  least  claim  to  the 
title.  To  "  preach  the  word,"  to  "  declare  the 
whole  counsel  of  God,"  to  instruct  the  people,  we 
are  totd  plainly  enough,  are  not  the  peculiar  at- 
tributes of  the  bishop.  By  what  rule  of  propriety 
should  he  be  characterised  by  symbols  which  are 
foreign  from  his  appropriate  functions  ?  by  sym- 
bols which  describe  exactly  the  functions  of  those 
ministers  whom,  we  are  taught,  they  do  7wt  re- 
present.* 

The  advocates  of  the  hierarchy  must  have  sum- 
moned up  the  most  desperate  resolution,  when 
they  ventured  upon  the  declaration  which  we  have 

*  "  Angel  of  the  church,"  is  a  phrase  borrowed  from  the  syna- 
gogue. "  It  answers  to  the  Hebrew  ^*)^^^  H'^tiJ^'  ^^^  Legate,  or 
delegate  of  the  church.  A  name  which  was  given  in  the  syna- 
gogue to  experienced  and  learned  men,  especially  the  Doctors  (or 
teachers,)  who  were  usually  delegated  to  pray  for  the  public  as- 
sembly, whether  in  ordinary  or  extraordinary  cases.  So  that  by 
Angels  of  the  churches  must  be  here  understood  those  rulers  of  the 
Christian  church,  whose  office  it  was  to  offer  up  public  prayers  in 
*he  church,  to  manage  sacred  concerns,  and  discourse  to  the  people." 

itringce  anacrisis apocalypseos,  p.  25.  To  the  same  purpose  speaks 
>^  profoundly  learned  Lightfoot.     Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  341.    Fol. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  149 

exposed.  To  do  them  justice,  they  seem  not  to 
have  been  forsaken  of  those  "  compunctious  visit- 
ings,"  which  occasionally  trouble  such  as  suspect 
the  righteousness  of  their  cause.  We  infer  this 
from  their  growing  dogmatical  and  rather  unruly 
in  their  asseverations,  nearly  in  proportion  as  they 
find  themselves  beset  with  difficulty.  Not  unlike 
men  who  are  accustomed  to  tell  "  a  tough  story," 
and  when  they  perceive  the  credulity  of  their  au- 
dience to  be  too  hard  pressed,  back  their  veracity 
with  a  file  of  oaths.  Any  plain  reader  will  observe, 
on  a  slight  inspection  of  these  epistles,  that  they 
address  the  angel  of  a  particular  church  in  the 
singular  or  plural  number  indifferently.  Thus  to 
the  angel  of  the  church  in  Smyrna^  the  Redeemer 
says,  /  know  THY  vjorks,  and  tribulation  and  poverty., 
but  THOU  art  rich — Fear  none  of  those  things  which 
THOU  shalt  SUFFER.  Behold  the  devil  shall  cast 
SOME  q/*  YOU  into  prison^  that  YE  may  be  tried ;  and 
YE  shall  have  tribulation  ten  days :  be  TYiOl]  faith- 
ful unto  the  death  ;  and  I  will  give  THEE  a  crown  of 
life* 

We  ask  any  dispassionate  man  whether  all  this 
is  not  addressed  to  the  angel  in  Smyrna  ?  Thou., 
says  the  text ;  "  Thou,"  the  angel,  "  shalt  suffer." 
How  ?  What  ?  "  Thus,"  saith  the  text,  "  the 
devil  shall  cast  into  prison  some  of  you'''' — you 
who  are  signified  by  the  angel.  However,  "  be 
thou  faithful  unto  the  death  ;"    i.  e.  although  thou 

♦  Rev.  ii.  8—10. 


150  Review. 

shouldest  die  for  being  faithful;  "  and  I  will  give 
/Aee,"  whom  ?  certainly  the  persecuted,  "  I  will 
give  thee  a  crown  of  life."  This  is  so  obvious, 
that,  in  order  to  evade  its  force,  the  Episcopal 
writers  represent  the  epistles  as  addressed  partly 
to  the  bishop  and  partly  to  the  people. 

"  When  what  is  said  relates  to  ihepeople,  the  style  is  altered  ; 
the  plural  number  is  then  used."  See  Cyprian  and  Potter  as 
above. 

This  gloss  is  contrary, 

1 .  To  the  plain  and  natural  construction  of  the 
prophet's  words;  which,  using  sometimes  the  sin- 
gular, and  sometimes  the  plural,  number,  when 
speaking  of  the  m?^^/,  leads  us  to  a  simple  and  easy 
solution,  by  supposing  that  he  employs  that  term  in 
a  collective  sense,  of  the  whole  ministry  of  the  church. 

2.  To  their  own  principles  which  the  Episco- 
pal writers  have  laid  down  as  containing  an  "  ab- 
solute demonstration"  of  the  prelatic  dignity  of 
these  angels,  viz.  "  That  the  titles  of  angels  and 
stars  are  constanili/  applied  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion to  sifigle  men,  and  never  to  a  society  or  number 
of  men."  The  epistle  is  written  to  the  angel  in 
Smyrna.  "  Angel,"  say  they,  always  signifies  a 
single  person,  and  never  a  number  of  men ;  and  yet 
they  say,  that  of  this  very  epistle  to  the  angel,  part 
is  addressed  directly  to  the  people^  who  are  "  a  so- 
ciety or  number  of  men." 

3.  To  their  own  distinction  between  the  em- 
blems which  point  out  the  ministry  and  the  church- 
es respectively. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  151 

**  The  stars  and  angels,"  say  they,  "  were  not  the  whole 
church  or  collective  body  of  Christians.  This  is  proved  in- 
contestably  from  these  considerations.  The  whole  churches 
or  collective  body  of  Christians,  are  represented  by  "  seven 
candlesticks,"  which  are  distinguished  from  the  "  seven  stars" 
that  are  emblems  of  the  angels,  the  bishops,"  &c.  See  above. 

The  distinction  is  just ;  but  it  is  completely 
overthrown  in  their  subsequent  interpretations. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  they  tell  us  very  truly,  that 
the  collective  body  of  Christians  is  signified  by  the 
symbol  of  a  "  candlestick :"  and  in  the  next,  that 
they  are  directly  addressed  in  the  letter  sent  to  the 
angel,  who  is,  say  they,  a  single  person  :  i.  e.  they 
are  explicitly  and  formally  addressed^  under  an  ap- 
pellation which  is  never  applied  to  them, 

4.  To  the  known  use  of  those  scriptural  em- 
blems, "  star"  and  "  angel."  These  titles  in  the 
context  are  perfectly  synonymous ;  whatever  is 
meant  by  "  star,"  is  acknowledged  to  be  meant  by 
"  angel."  Now  both  these  symbols  depict  official 
character;  and  consequently,  when  applied  to  the 
Christian  church,  cannot  mean  the  people  as  dis- 
tinguished from  their  ministers.  Therefore,  un- 
der the  term  "  angel,"  the  ministry  and  the  people 
cannot  be  distinctly  addressed. 

5.  To  the  tenour  of  the  exhortations  and  pro- 
mise in  the  text.  If  the  "  angel"  is  the  collective 
body  of  the  ministry  upon  whom  the  persecution 
was  to  fall,  then  the  exhortations.  Fear  none  of  those 
things  which  thou  shalt  suffer — Be  thou  faithful  unto 
the  death  ;  and  the  promise,  /  will  give  thee  a  crown 


152  R 


evtew 


oflife^  are  in  harmony  with  the  pre-monition  that 
the  Devil  should  cast  some  of  them  into  prison.  The 
anticipation  of  evil  is  softened  by  the  assurance 
of  support.  But  according  to  the  Episcopal  con- 
struction, the  sorrow  goes  one  way  and  the  con- 
solation the  other :  the  bishop  is  exhorted  not  to 
fear :  to  be  faithful  unto  the  death.  But  it  seems 
that  the  people  only  are  to  bear  the  calamity. 
The  bishop  has  a  glorious  promise  of  a  crown  ot 
life  ;  but  not  a  word  to  cheer  his  oppressed  flock. 
Cold  comfort  this  to  the  poor  prisoners  cooped 
up  by  the  devil  in  a  dungeon !  One  would  think 
that  the  "  cup  of  salvation'^  might  have  been  put 
to  the  lips  which  vv^ere  drmking  deeply  of  the  cup 
of  sorrow.  But  the  matter  is  more  dexterously 
managed  :  the  bishop  suffers,  and  the  people  are 
consoled, — by  proxy.  A  mode  of  suffering,  we 
presume,  to  which  the  bishops  of  the  present  day, 
and  many  others  beside  them,  would  submit  with 
great  magnanimity.  How  they  would  relish  the 
consolation  thus  administered,  is  another  affair. 

Lastly.,  to  the  authority  delegated  by  Christ  to 
Presbyters :  We  have  formerly  proved  that  every 
ordinary  power  left  in  the  church  is,  in  the  most 
direct  and  unequivocal  manner,  devolved  on  Pres- 
byters. And  as  one  part  of  scripture  cannot 
be  repugnant  to  another,  it  is  impossible  that  any 
term  or  expression  here,  in  this  book  of  the  Re- 
velation, can  be  rightly  interpreted,  which  is  said 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  153 

to  lodge  the  whole  power  of  government  and  dis- 
cipline in  a  bishop,  to  the  exclusion  of  presbyters. 

We  do  not  feel  conscious  of  any  arrogance  in 
supposing,  that  after  the  reader,  who  is  sohcitous 
to  know  the  truth,  shall  carefully  have  examined 
and  compared  the  reasonings  now  submitted  to 
him;  and  allowed  them  their  due  force  on  his 
mind,  he  will  coincide  with  us  in  opinion,  that  the 
"  angels"  and  "  stars"  in  the  context  before  us,  do 
NOT  signify  single  persons^  but  a  number  of  men  ; 
that  is,  are  emblems  of  a  collective  ministry^  and  not 
of  diocesan  bishops. 

"  Thus  endeth  the  second  lesson,"  which  is  con- 
cerning Cyprian's  "  absolute  demonstration"  that 
the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  were 
Episcopal  prelates. 

We  now  come  to  the  third  and  great  fact  of  the 
Hierarchy,  the  prelatical  character  of  Timothy 
and  Titus.  The  inquiry  consists  of  two  parts ; 
the  first,  concerning  their  ordination^  and  the  second, 
\he\x  powers. 

Although  the  Episcopal  writers  argue  less  con- 
fidently from  the  first  of  these  topics  than  from 
the  second ;  yet  it  is  not  unimportant  to  their 
cause.  For  if  they  can  prove  that  ordination  to 
the  ministry  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  was  Epis- 
copal, in  their  sense  of  the  term;  that  is,  that  an 
officer  whom  they  call  the  bishop,  had  the  sole 
power  of  ordination,  presbyters  being  permitted 
merely  to  express  their  consent — if  they  can  prove 

Vol.  III.  20 


154  Review . 


this,  it  vviJl  be  hard  to  escape  from  the  conclusion, 
that  the  whole  government  of  the  church  was 
prelatical.  If  they  decline  much  reliance  upon 
it,  as  Dr.  Hobart  and  the  Layman  say  they  do,^ 
their  shyness  must  be  imputed  to  some  other 
cause  than  its  insignificance  ;  for  they  are  not  in 
the  habit  of  dechning  very  humble  aid  ;  and  our 
former  remarks  will  show  that,  though  well  sup- 
plied with  assertions^  they  have  no  evidence  to 
spare. 

The  following  texts  have  been  quoted  under 
the  present  head. 

For  Timothy. 

JYeglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
OF  THE  Presbytery.     1  Tim,  iv.  14. 

Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance  that  thou  stir 
up  the  gift  of  God  ivhich  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting 

ON  OF  MY  HANDS.       2    Tim.  l.  6. 

For  Titus. 

For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting  ;  and 
ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as  i  had  appointed  thee. 
Titus  i.  5. 

From  these  texts  one  thing  is  clear,  viz.  that 
both  Paul  and  the  Presbytery  imposed  hands  on 
Timothy.  But  several  questions  have  been  started 

*  Collec.  p.  59,  note.  Layman,  No.  V.  p.  51. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  155 

about  the  rest.  Who  constituted  the  Presbytery  ? 
Why  were  hands  imposed  on  Timothy  ?  Was 
this  his  consecration  to  the  evangehcal  ministry  ? 
If  so,  what  share  had  the  apostle  in  the  transac- 
tion, and  what  the  presbytery  ?  The  high  church 
construction  is,  that  '•  St.  Paul  ordained  Timothy 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  Presbytery.  By  the 
Presbytery  may  be  understood  a  number  of  Apos- 
tles who  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy,  since  the 
Apostles,  though  certainly  superiour  to  Presbyters, 
style  themselves  ^'  Elders,"  or  Presbyters.  The 
Greek  expositors  understood  the  passage  in  this 
sense  as  well  as  the  Greek  church,  both  ancient 
and  modern — since  in  the  ordinations  of  this 
church,  the  Presbyters  do  not  lay  on  their  hands 
with  the  Bishop.  Nor  was  it  the  custom  in  the 
Western  church  until  the  fourth  century.  But 
allowing  that  by  the  Presbytery  is  meant  a  num- 
ber of  Presbyters,  it  is  evident,  from  a  compari- 
son of  the  two  texts,  that  the  Presbyters  imposed 
hands,  not  to  convey  authority^  but  merely  to  ex- 
press approbation.  "  By  the  putting  on  of  my 
hands,"  "  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery."  In  the  church  of  England,  the  Pres- 
byters lay  on  their  hands  with  the  Bishops  in  or- 
dination, to  denote  their  consent.''''^ 

As  our  business,  at  present,  is  not  with  ecclesi- 

*  Hobart's  Festivals  and  Fasts,  p.  25.  The  Greek  expositors 
to  whom  he  refers  in  the  margin,  are  Chnjsostom  and  Theophy- 
lact.     Thcophylact   has   copied    Chrysostom,   whose   words  are, 

ov  Ttcpi  irpca(ivTep(i)v  (p>]iJiv  tVTuvda-  aWa.  rrcpi  fKiaKoi:-)v,  ov  yap  fr}  Trpt(7f%Ttpui   top 


156  Review. 

astical  history,  but  with  the  interpretation  of 
scripture,  we  pass  over  the  alkision  to  the 
Greek  and  Western  churches.  "  The  evidence" 
that  "  the  Presbyters  imposed  hands  not  to  convey 
authority.,  but  merely  to  express  approbation^^''  is  ex- 
torted from  the  two  prepositions  "  6z/"  and  "  ivith.''^ 
"  By  my  hands,"  says  Paul :  therefore  he  alone 
ordairied  Timothy.  "  With  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery,"  says  he  again :  there- 
fore, the  Presbytery  merely  "  expressed  their  ap- 
probation.'''' 

In  support  of  this  "  evident"  difference  between 
the  agency  of  Paul  and  that  of  the  Presbytery  in 
the  ordination,  the  Layman  has  entertained  us 
with  some  rare  criticism  which  we  shall  not  be  so 
unjust  as  to  withhold  from  our  readers. 

*'  It  is  known  to  every  Greek  scholar,  that  dia  signifies, 
emphaticaHy,  the  cause  of  a  thing  ;  while  meta  denotes 
emphatically,    nearness   of    situation,    relation,    connexion, 

imffKOTTov  ex^ipoTovovv.  Chrys.  ad  loc.  "  He,  the  apostle,  is  not  speak- 
ing here  of  Presbyters,  but  of  Bishops  :  for  Presbyters  did  not 
ordain  a  Bishop.^^  The  eloquent  Patriarch  flounders  sadly.  He 
takes  for  grauted,  that  Timothy  was  a  bishop  :  to  allow  that  a 
bishop  could  be  ordained  by  Presbyters,  would  demolish  the  whole 
fabrick  of  the  hierarchy.  Paul  had  used  an  ugly  word  for  their 
spiritual  mightinesses  ;  and  so,  to  make  short  work  with  him,  the 
golden-mouthed  preacher  flatly  contradicts  him.  It  was  a  "  pres- 
bytery," said  the  apostle.  It  was  a  council  of  bishops,  replies 
Chrysostora.  Yet,  after  all,  neither  he  nor  Theophylact,  have 
interpreted  the  term  of  Apostles.  When  a  writer  quotes  authori- 
ties without  consulting  them,  he  should  be  wary,  and  be  extreme- 
ly cautious  in  mentioning  names.  Dr.  H.  was  probably  in  haste. 
Had  he  stuck  closer  to  Potter,  he  would  have  been  less  inaccurate. 


*  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  157 

agreement.  It  need  not  be  observed  that  words  are  used 
sometimes  more  loosely,  and  sometimes  more  strictly.  A 
term  is  often  introduced  in  a  sense  different  from  its  original 
and  primary  meaning.  The  two  words  dia  and  meta  are 
opposed  in  the  Epistles  of  Timothy.  Well,  then,  the  two 
words  being  opposed,  and  the  first,  as  every  Greek  scholar 
knows,  denoting,  emphatically,  the  cause  of  a  thing  ;  the  lat- 
ter conveying,  particularly,  the  idea  of  relation,  connexion, 
agreement,  it  follows,  obviously,  that  they  are  to  be  taken  in 
these  their  appropriate  senses.  Our  author  will  not  venture 
to  say  that  the  Greek  word  meta  is  as  appropriate  an  one  as 
dia  to  express  the  cause  of  a  thing.  He  will  not  so  far  ha- 
zard his  reputation  as  a  scholar.  I  assert,  then,  that  dia  sig- 
nifies, particularly,  the  cause  of  a  thing,  and  that  meta  is  the 
preposition  of  concurrence.  Nor  is  this  invalidated  by  the 
circumstance  of  meta  being  sometimes  used  as  dia  with  the 
genitive  case.  The  emphatical  distinction  between  the  two 
words  lies  in  the  first  denoting  a  cause,  the  other  concurrence. 
Wliy  does  St.  Paul  carefully  use  the  word  dia  in  the  one 
case,  and  meta  in  the  other  1  Why  does  he  not  use  meta  in 
both  cases  1  It  is  to  be  recollected  too,  that  the  passages 
are,  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy,  relating  to  the  same  subject  ; 
and  of  course,  the  terms  must  be  regarded  as  contrasted  with 
one  another.  Surely  the  words  dia  and  meta,  as  opposed, 
signify,  the  first,  the  cause  of  a  thing  ;  the  last,  nearness, 
concurrence,  agreement.  This  is  familiar  to  every  Greek 
scholar,  and  1  assert  it  on  the  authority  of  the  best  lexicons 
of  the  language.  The  circumstance,  then,  of  the  Apostle 
using  a  word  in  relation  to  himself,  which  denotes  the  instru- 
mental cause,  and  with  respect  to  the  Presbytery,  a  word 
which,  particularly  as  distinguished  from  dia,  expresses  agree- 
ment, shows,  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power  was  vested 
in  him,  and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery,  was 
an  act  of  mere  concurrence."* 

♦  Layman,  No.  V.  Coll.  p.  53,  54. 


^-w. 


1 58  Review, 

That  Presbytery  may  be  left  without  a  shadow 
of  support,  these  two  unhappy  prepositions,  (dia  8r 
/i£Ta,)  (fita  and  meta)  by  and  ivith^  are  doomed  to 
the  same  rack  on  which  Cyprian  had  formerly 
tortured  a  noun,  and  the  Layman  himself  both  a 
noun  and  a  verb,  into  witnesses  for  the  hierarchy.* 
It  being  presumed  that  the  imposition  of  hands 
relates  to  Timothy's  ordination,  the  "  presbytery," 
whose  act  it  was,  whether  composed  of  mere  Pres- 
byters, or  of  Prelates,  or  of  Apostles,  had  nothing 
to  do  in  the  affair,  but  barely  to  express  their  con- 
sent ;  and  if  this  appear  dubious,  it  shall  be  sub- 
stantiated by  the  deposition  of  dia  and  meta. 

*'  It  is  kno\Yn,"  says  the  Layman,  "  to  every  Greek  scho- 
lar, that  c?i«"  [hy)  "  signifies,  emphatically,  the  cause  of  a 
thing  ;  while  meta^''  (ivith)  "  denotes,  emphatically,  nearness 
of  situation,  relation,  connexion,  agreement."f 

We  do  not  wish  to  be  uncharitable,  but,  if  we 
must  judge  from  the  instances  of  words,  which,  in 
this  collection  have  been  unfortunate  enough  to 
undergo  his  critical  process,  it  is  very  hard  for  the 
Layman  to  tell  what  a  Greek  scholar  knows.  Scho- 
lars, like  other  classes  of  men,  have  their  appropri- 
ate habits  of  speaking  and  acting :  And  when  one 
who  has  had  only  a  dining-room  acquaintance  with 
them,  affects  to  be  of  their  number,  his  awkward 
imitation  betrays  him  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
dialect  of  a  foreigner  distinguishes  him  from  a  na- 
tive, as  a  prime  minister  would  loose  the  reputa- 

*  See  p.  54.-62.    f  Hoharts  Apology,  p.  154. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  159 

tion  of  a  statesman  by  relying  on  annual  registers, 
on  reviews,  or  the  gazettes,  for  his  great  political 
facts.  No  scholar  would  have  made  the  Layman's 
indefinite  appeal  to  "  the  best  lexicons  in  the  lan- 
guage," for  settling  the  meaning  of  a  disputed 
word.  He  would  have  produced  examples  from 
the  only  legitimate  authorities,  the  original  writers. 
How  the  Layman  would  fare  in  such  hands,  we 
shall  not  conjecture  :  but  we  are  sure  that  a  very 
little  acquaintance  with  Greek  is  sufficient  to 
pluck  away  the  feathers  with  which  poor  dia  and 
meta  have  been  made  to  adorn  his  plume. 

"  Dia  signifies,  emphatically,  the  cause  of  a  thing." 

For  example : 

It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  (dia)  the  eye 
of  a  needle^  than,  &rc.     Math.  xix.  24. 

Jesus  went — through  (dia)  the  cornfields.  Mark 
ii.  23. 

And  again  he  entered  into  Capernaum.,  after  (dia) 
some  days.     Mark  ii.  I. 

Now  what  "  cause"  does  the  preposition  dia  ex- 
press here.  Does  it  "  emphatically,"  as  the  Lay- 
man speaks,  "  signify  the  cause''''  of  the  needle's 
eye  }  of  the  cornfields  ?  or  of  the  days  ?  or  the 
"  cause''''  of  the  camel's  going  through  the  first  ?  of 
our  Lord's  going  through  the  second?  or  of  his 
spending  the  third  before  he  went  into  Caper- 
naum ?  When  the  Layman  shall  have  found  his 
emphatical  signification  o{  dia  in  these  instances, 
he  may  call  upon  us  for  a  hundred  more 


160  R 


evtew. 


The  fact  is,  that  this  preposition  nevet-  signifies 
the  cause  of  a  thing  :  whatever  the  "  Lexicons" 
say.  It  expresses  the  idea  of  transition  or  trans- 
mission^  and  has  no  Enghsh  word  to  correspond 
with  it  so  well  as  the  preposition  "  through.'''' 
Whether  it  is  accompanied  with  the  notion  of  a 
cause  or  not,  must  be  determined  by  the  phrase 
where  it  occurs. 

But  in  spoiling  the  Layman's  criticism,  we  ac- 
knowledge that  we  have  not  overthrown  his  argu- 
ment. For  z/the  imposition  of  Paul's  hands  was 
the  medium  through  which,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
Presbytery,  he  alone  conveyed  the  ministerial  com- 
mission to  Timothy;  and  z/ this  act  of  his  formed 
a  precedent  for  all  subsequent  ordinations,  the 
Layman  has  won,  and  we  own  Timothy  to  have 
been  episcopally  ordained  :  Whether  a  bishop  or 
not,  would  still  remain  a  question.  These  e/>, 
however,  seem  to  be  rather  anti-episcopal. 

From  the  words  of  Paul,  we  should  conclude, 
that  whoever  or  whatever  else  might  have  been 
concerned  in  this  august  transaction,  a  material 
part  of  it  belonged  to  the  Presbytery.  Neglect  not 
the  gift  that  is  in  thee.,  which  ivas  given  thee  by  pro- 
phecy.) WITH  THE   LAYING    ON    OF    THE   HANDS  OF  THE 

Presbytery.  A  plain  reader  would  certainly  say, 
that  Timothy  was  Presbyterially  ordained :  as  he 
could  not  well  imagine  that  a  Presbyterian  him- 
self would  have  chosen  to  word  the  account  dif-. 
ferently.  But  this  would  be  the  errour  of  one  who 


Essays  071  Episcopacy.  161 

had  never  heard  what  marvels  can  be  effected  by 
a  httle  critical  legerdemain  operating  upon  Greek 
prepositions.  O  no  !  This  is  the  very  text  which 
proves  that  his  ordina.tion  was  not  presbyterial ! 
x\stonishing  !  I  see  Timothy  bowing  before  the 
Presbytery.  I  see  them  imposing  hands  upon  his 
head  :  I  am  told  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  the  gift 
which  was  in  him  was  given  him  with  the  laying 
on  of  their  hands  :  and  yet  they  did  not  ordain 
him!  "  No  I"  Had  no  share  in  his  ordination! 
'•  No  !"  Gave  him  no  gift  at  all !  "  No  !"  Verily 
this  Layman  is  unceremonious  in  his  behaviour  to 
words  ;  for  he  will  either  allow  them  no  meaning 
at  all ;  or  else,  as  it  may  suit  him,  they  shall  mean 
in  the  mouth  of  an  apostle,  the  contrary  to  vvhat 
they  ever  have  meant  or  ever  shall  mean,  in  the 
mouth  of  any  other  man  !  J\^o  ordination!  JV^o 
communication  by  the  Presbytery  !  Why,  that  old 
Jesuit,  who  has  foisted  the  Virgin  Mary  into  every 
chapter  of  the  book  of  Proverbs,^  could  not  him- 
self be  more  fantastical !  How,  in  the  name  of 
common  sense,  is  the  Presbytery  disposed  of.'^ 
Softly,  zealous  friend,  softly.  Thou  shalt  see. 
Here  comes  the  magician :  his  wand  shall  touch 
the  little  four-lettered  vocabule,  "  with,"  and  lo, 
the  whole  Presbytery  will  evanish,  and  leave  only 
a  single  ordaining  hand  ! 

'*  The  circumstance  of  the  apostie  using  a  word  in  relation 
to  himself,  which  denotes  the  instrumental  cause,"  viz.  dia; 

*  Vid.  F-  Q.  De  Salazar,  expositioin  Proverbia. 
Vol.  III.  21 


1 62  Review. 

• 
"and  with  respect  to  the  Presbytery,  a  word  which,  particularly 

as  distinguished  from  dia,  expresses  agreement,"  viz.  meia ; 

"  shows,  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power  was  vested   in 

him  ;  and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery,  was  an 

act  of  mere  concurrence.'''' 

So  they  wrap  it  up !  Let  us  try  to  unwrap  it  a 
little,  and  see  U'hether  the  bundle  will  bear  exami- 
nation. So  far  as  we  can  perceive,  there  is  no- 
thing here  but  a  play  upon  words  ;  and  the  argu- 
ment consists  in  the  jingle.  The  interpretation  of 
the  word  used  by  the  apostle,  is  bent  and  twisted 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  induce  the  unlettered 
reader  to  suppose  that  it  expresses  the  assent  of 
one  person  to  the  act  of  another.  We  do  not  ob- 
ject to  the  Layman's  translating  meta  by  "  con- 
currence ;"  for  according  to  our  great  English 
Lexicographer,  "  concurrence"  signifies  "  union, 
association,  conjunction :"  "  Agreement ;  act  of 
joining  in  any  design  or  measure" — '•  combination 
of  many  agents  or  circumstances,"  &c.  ;  but 
popular  and  colloquial  usage  often  employs  it 
when  nothing  more  is  intended  than  an  approbation 
of  an  opinion  or  a  measure.  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  the  Layman  uses  it;  and  it  is  here  that  his 
criticism  puts  a  fraud  upon  his  reader.  We  do  not 
say  that  the  fraud  is  intentional ;  before  we  can 
prove  this,  we  must  prove  that  he  understands 
Greek ;  which  we  humbly  beg  leave  to  decline. 
But  we  shall  freely  give  him  the  "  eight  or  ten 
years"  which  his  friend  has  craved,*  in  order  to 

•  Hobart's  ^;?oZog*y,  p.241. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  163 

support  his  construction  of  meta  by  the  proper 
authorities  ;  and  he  shall  have  ••  the  best  lexicons 
of  the  language"  into  the  bargain. 

But  as  we  do  not  ask  for  credence  to  our  bare 
assertion,  we  shall  subject  the  Layman's  distinc- 
tion between  dia  and  meta  to  the  test  of  fact. 

*'  It  is  to  be  recollected,"  says  he,  "  that  the  passages  are  in 
his"  (Paul's)  "  epistles  to  Timothy,  relating  to  the  same  sub- 
ject ;  and  of  course,  the  terms,"  (viz.  dia  and  meta,)  "  must 
be  regarded  as  contrasted  with  one  another." 

Be  it  so.  1  open  my  New  Testament  and  read, 
that  '•  many  signs  and  ivondsrs  were  done  by  (dia)  the 
apostksy^  Proceeding  in  the  narrative,  1  read 
afterwards  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  rehearsed  all 
things  that  God  had  done  with  (meta)  them.'f  Now. 
the  Layman  being  judge,  as  ^'  the  passages  relate 
to  the  same  subject,"  viz.  the  miraculous  works 
which  God  enabled  his  servants  to  perform,  and 
the  success  with  which  he  crowned  their  ministry, 
"  the  terms"  dia  and  7neta  "  must  be  regarded  as 
contrasted  with  one  another.  The  circumstance, 
then,  of  the  historian  using  a  word  in  relation  to 
the  apostles  in  general,  which  denotes  the  instru- 
mental cause  ;  and  with  respect  to  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas, a  word  which,  particularly  as  distinguished 
from  dia^  expresses  agreement,  shows  clearly,  that 
the  authoritative  power  was  vested  in  the  former, 
and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  was  an 

*  Act  ii.  43.  'jr'aXXa  ts  rs^ara  xia  C>]as(a  AlA  twv  acroCToXwv 
f  h<fcc  h6:og  s-TToiricfc  MET'  auTwv Act.  xv.  4. 


1 64  Review, 

act  of  mere  concurrence."  In  fewer  words,  when 
Peter,  James,  &c.  wrought  miracles,  they  did  it  in 
virtue  of  an  authoritative  power  ;  and  when  Paul 
and  Barnabas  wrought  miracles,  they  had  no  au- 
thoritative or  instrumental  agency,  but  merely  ex- 
pressed their  approbation  of  what  God  did  ivithout 
them ;  although  the  historian  has  positively  assert 
ed  that  he  did  it  ivith  them.  All  this  from  the  dif- 
ference between  dia  and  meta  ! 

Should  the  Layman  by  any  means  escape  from 
this  difficulty,  it  will  be  to  fall  into  another  still 
greater.  Before  he  ventured  upon  the  criticism 
now  under  review,  he  ought  to  have  read,  in  the 
original,  the  verse  which  he  has  undertaken  to 
criticise.  There  he  would  have  found  his  dia  and 
meta  in  the  same  proposition,  and  separated  only 
by  a  single  word.  The  gift^  says  Paul  to  Timothy, 
which  was  given  thee  by  (dia)  prophecT/,  with  (meta) 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.^  That 
the  terms  relate  to  the  same  subject,  is  indisputa- 
ble ;  and  of  course,  says  the  Layman,  they  are 
"  contrasted  with  one  another.  The  circumstance, 
then,"  proceeds  he,  "  of  the  apostle  using  a  word 
in  relation  to  prophecy,  which  denotes  the  instru- 
mental cause ;  and,  with  respect  to  the  Presby- 
tery, a  word  which,  particularly  as  distinguished 
from  dia^  expresses  agreement,  shows,  clearly, 
that  the  authoritative  power  was  vested  in  the 

*JTira.iv.  14. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  165 

prophecy ;  and  that  the  act,  on  the  part  of  the 
Presbytery,  was  an  act  of  mere  concurrence." 

The  result  of  the  Layman's  criticism  is,  that 
Timothy  had  two  ordinations,  by  tivo  authoritative 
powers,  viz.  the  prophecy,  and  the  apostle  Paul ; 
and  two  concurrences  of  the  Presbytery,  viz.  one 
with  prophecy,  and  one  with  the  apostle.  We 
cannot  deny  that  he  was  well  ordained ! 

From  words  let  us  go  to  things,  and  see  what 
the  Episcopal  argument  will  gain  by  the  exchange. 
The  imposition  of  hands  on  the  part  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, was  an  act,  it  is  said,  of  "  mere  concur- 
rence ;"  designed  to  express  approbation,  and  not 
at  all  to  convey  the  ministerial  office.* 

This  assertion  is  not  only  without  proof,  but  is 
directly  in  the  face  of  all  the  proof  which  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  admits. 

1.  By  what  rule  of  reasoning  is  the  very  same  act^ 
viz.  imposition  of  hands,  performed  at  the  same 
time,,  in  relation  to  the  same  subject,,  considered  as 
expressing  the  communication  of  authority  by  one 
of  the  persons  engaged,  and  only  as  expressing 
approbation  by  all  the  rest  ?  When  certain  distinc- 
tions have  taken  place,  it  is  easy  to  invent  other 
distinctions  to  justify  them.  But  is  it  credible.^ 
does  it  belong  to  the  nature  of  significant  rites, 
that  a  rite  signifying  the  conferring  of  power  should 
be  employed  by  a  number  of  persons  in  a  concur- 

*  HoBART  and  the  Layman,  as  above. 


166  R 


evtew. 


rent  act,  and  yet,  with  regard  to  all  but  one  of  them, 
not  signify  the  conferring  power  at  all  ? 
^  2.  The  advocates  of  prelacy  are  challenged  to 
produce  from  the  scriptures,  or  other  authentic 
records  of  the  apostolic  and  preceding  ages,  proof 
that  imposition  of  hands  was  used  to  signify  mere 
assent  or  approbation.  To  say  that  it  might  so 
signify,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  point  to 
be  determined  is,  not  what  it  might,  but  what  it 
did,  signify.  If,  in  every  other  case,  imposition  of 
hands  expressed  authoritative  communication,  it 
must  have  done  so  in  the  ordination  of  Timothy  ; 
and  to  maintain  that  it  did  not,  is  to  beg  the  ques- 
tion. The  Episcopal  construction  violates  the 
plainest  meaning  both  of  words  and  of  actions. 
The  Presbyterian  construction  is  in  perfect  coin- 
cidence with  both.  Paul  says  that  the  gift  in 
Timothy  was  given  to  him  by  prophecy,  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hatids  of  the  Presbytery.  It  is  agreed 
that  prophecy,  or  prophecies  which  went  before 
on  Timothy,  designated  him  as  a  fit  person  for  the 
ministry  :  but  did  not  invest  him  with  office — did 
not  give  him  the  gift.  Had  there  been  nothing 
else  but  the  prophecy,  he  would  have  had  no  com- 
mission. It  was  necessary  that  the  imposition  of 
the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  should  concur  with  the 
prophetical  designation,  or  Timothy  had  remained 
a  layman.  The  Presbytery  did  thus  concur;  they 
did  lay  their  hands  on  Timothy,  and  he  received 
his  office.     Now  as  the  prophecy  made  no  part  of 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  167 

his  ordination  -,  it  follows,  that  he  was  ordained  by 
the  Presbytery.  If  the  gift  which  was  in  him  by 
the  imposition  of  Paul's  hands,  was  his  ministerial 
commission,  that  apostle  had  no  share  in  it  which 
was  not  common  to  every  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery ;  or  else  his  declaration,  that  Timothy  was 
ordained  by  prophecy  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery,  would  not  be  true.  Nor 
is  there  any  thing  in  his  e,xpression  which  might 
not  be  used  by  every  one  of  his  colleagues,  and 
with  peculiar  propriety  by  himself,  if,  as  it  is  not 
improbable,  he  presided  at  Timothy's  ordination. 
To  exhibit  this  subject  in  another  light,  we  pro- 
pose a  few  questions  which  some  of  the  advocates 
for  prelacy  would  do  no  disservice  to  their  cause 
by  answering  in  such  a  manner  as  to  remove  the 
scruples  they  must  naturally  occasion. 

1.  Did  Paul  alone  ordain  Timothy?  or  was  his 
ordination  the  joint  act  of  the  Presbytery.^  If  the 
latter,  we  have  a  complete  scriptural  example  of 
Presbyterial  ordination.  If  the  former,  so  that  the 
Presbytery,  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands,  mere- 
ly testified  their  assent^  then, 

2.  Were  the  persons  who  thus  imposed  hands  on 
Timothy  simple  Presbyters,  or  were  they  apostles 
or  prelates  }  If  the  latter,  then, 

3.  How  came  Paul  to  appropriate  to  himself  a 
power  which  belonged  to  every  one  of  them  in  as 
full  right  as  it  could  possibly  belong  to  him  }  How 
came  they  to  surrender  this  their  power  into  the 


168  Review. 

hands  of  an  individual?  And  how  could  the  impo- 
sition of  Paul's  hands  bestow  the  ministerial  gift, 
while  others,  possessing  the  same  authority^  did,  by 
the  very  same  ac/,  at  the  very  same  time^  merely 
declare  their  assent? 

If  the  former,  i.  e.  if  those  who  concurred  with 
Paul  in  the  imposition  of  hands  were  simple  Pres- 
byters, then, 

4.  What  ordination  .did  Timothy  receive  ?  Was 
he  ordained  a  Presbyter  or  a  Prelate  ?  If  the  for- 
mer, his  Episcopal  character,  in  so  far  as  it  de- 
pends upon  his  ordination,  is  swept  away ;  and 
we  have  not  a  single  instance  of  the  consecration 
of  a  prelate  in  ah  the  New  Testament.  If  the  lat- 
ter, then, 

,  5.  How  came  simple  Presbyters  to  impose  hands 
upon  the  head  of  a  Bishop  at  his  consecration  ? 
Or  supposing  these  Presbyters  to  have  been  Pre- 
lates, where  was  Timothy's  commission  ?  By  the 
terms  of  the  argument,  he  was  ordained  by  Paul 
alone ;  but  according  to  the  Episcopal  order, 
which  we  are  assured  is  the  apostolical  order,  two 
or  three  bishops  are  necessary  to  ordain  a  bishop.* 

*    ETTto-AroTTOs     vrro     eniffKOirMv    ^eipoTovsicOo}   AYO   rj  TPIiiN.       Can-  AVOS. 

I.  Apud  PP.  App.  Tom.  I.  p.  442.  Ed.  Clerici.  Ou  this  canon, 
Bishop  Beveridge  thus  comments.  "  This  right,  therefore,  used 
by  the  apostles  themselves,  and  prescribed,  by  apostolical  men, 
our  church,"  meaning  the  church  of  England,  "  most  religiously 
observes  ;  and,  as  far  as  possible,  it  ought,  beyond  all  doubt,  to 
be  observed  every  where.  But  when  necessity,  that  most  unre- 
lenting mistress,  shall  require  it,  the  rigour  of  the  canon  may  be 
so  far  relaxed,  as  that  a  bishop  may  be  ordained  by  tivo.''^  Ibid  p.  457. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  169 

And  so  poor  Timothy  was  not  ordained  a  bishop 
at  all.  If,  in  order  to  give  him  his  mitre,  we  make 
the  Presbytery  to  consist  of  Apostles,  or  men  of 
apostolic  rank,  we  not  only  prostrate  the  Lay- 
man's famous  criticism  about  dia  and  meta.,  but 
are  left  without  the  vestige  of  an  ordination  by  a 
prelate  alone,  in  so  far  as  that  point  is  to  be  made 
out  by  the  ordination  of  Timothy.*  There  re- 
mains nothing  but  an  example  of  ordination  by 
a  Presbytery^  which  is  all  that  the  Presbyterians 
desire. 

We  cannot  dismiss  this  point  without  remark- 
ing how  our  prelatical  friends  shift  their  ground. 

Two  things  are  to  be  proved  :  that  Timothy 
was  a  Bishop ;  and,  that  a  Bishop  alone  ordains. 
For  Xhefirst^  according  to  our  Episcopal  brethren, 
the  Presbytery,  who  joined  with  Paul  in  laying 
hands  on  Timothy,  were  bona  fide  prelates,  who, 
jointly  with  the  apostle,  imparted  the  Episcopal 
dignity  ;  and  so  Timothy  is  a  bishop  without  any 
more  ado.  But  for  the  second^  the  Presbytery  were 
not  prelates ;  or  if  they  were,  they  did  not  ordain 
jointly  with  the  apostle;  they  merely  expressed 
their  approbation. 

"  The  legs  of  the  lame  are  not  equal."  If  we 
adopt  the  first,  we  lose  the  proof  of  ordination  by 
a  Bishop  alone.  If  the  second,  we  lose  the  ordina- 
tion of  bishop  Timothy.     The  latter  makes  dia 

*  Ordination  performed  by  Titus  shall  hereafter  be  considered. 
Vol.111.  22 


170  Review, 

show  "  clearly,  that  the  authoritative  power  was 
vested  in  Paul,"  and  meta,  that  "  the  act  on  the 
part  of  the  Presbytery,  was  an  act  of  mere  con- 
currence." The  former  shows,  with  equal  clear- 
ness, that  the  authoritative  power  was  not  vested 
in  Paul  alone ;  that  the  act  on  the  part  of  the 
Presbytery,  was  not  an  act  of  mere  concuiTence ; 
and  that  there  is  nothing  in  dia  and  meta  to  esta- 
bhsh  the  contrary.  When  a  circle  and  a  square 
coincide,  then  shall  these  two  arguments  for  pre- 
lacy be  consistent  with  each  other. 

So  much  for  Timothy''s  ordination.  Now  for 
that  of  Titus.  Him,  too,  the  Layman  has  ordain- 
ed Episcopally. 

"  To  Titus  the  apostle  says,  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  want- 
ing, and  ordain  elders  in  every  city  as  I  had  appointed  thee. 
Here  let  it  be  observed,  in  passing  alona:,  that  Titus  is  spoken 
of  as  having  been  ordained  by  the  apostle  :  As  I  had  appoint- 
ed thee.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  Presbytery  in  this  case.  Paul 
appointed  Titus  to  his  office.  And  this  is  a  conclusive  cir- 
cumstance for  believing  that  the  case  was  the  same  in  relation 
to  Timothy,  as  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  were 
commissioned  in  different  ways."* 

We  agree  that  the  office  of  Timothy  and  Titus 
was  the  same,  and  that  they  were  commissioned 
in  the  same  manner.  But  the  Layman  has  over- 
shot his  mark.  For,  as  we  have  already  stated, 
the  advocates  for  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy 
maintain  that  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  by  two  or 

*    Layman,  No.  V.  Collec.  p.  56. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  171 

three  others,  is  an  apostolical  institution :  and  that 
even  in  cases  of  the  hardest  necessity^  two  bishops 
are  essential  to  the  ordination  of  a  third.  One  of 
two  consequences  is  inevitable;  either  that  Paul 
exercised,  on  this  occasion,  his  extraordinary- 
power,  and  so  has  set  no  precedent;  or,  if  he  set 
a  precedent  for  ordination  by  a  single  prelate,  Ti- 
tus was  no  more  than  a  presbyter,  and  could  not 
by  himself,  ordain  other  presbyters.  All  this  rests 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  expression,  as  I  had 
appointed  thee.,  refers  to  the  ordination  of  Titus. 
Another  blunder.  There  is  not  a  syllable  about 
his  ordination  in  the  text.  It  pre-supposes  his 
authority,  and  relates  solely  to  the  directions  which 
the  apostle  had  given  him  for  the  application  of  it. 
The  word  rendered,  "  appointed^^''  frequently  oc- 
curs in  the  New  Testament,  but  always,  with  the 
construction  before  us,  in  the  sense  of  prescribing, 
enjoining,  commanding :  and  never  in  the  sense 
of  setting  apart  to  an  office — Thus, 

He  COMMANDED  (d^cTa^aTo)  «  ccuturiou  to  keep 
Paul.  Acts  xxiv.  23.  Surely  Felix  did  not  then 
give  the  centurion  his  military  commission. 

dS^s  God  hath  distributed  to  every  man  ;  as  the  Lord 
hath  called  every  one.,  so  let  him  tvalk  :  and  so  ordain 
I,  {diaraoooimi)  direct,  enjoin  I,  in  all  churches. 
1  Cor.  vii.  17. 

In  the  very  same  manner  does  Paul  speak  to 
Titus. 

As  I  had  APPOINTED  (duTa^ajjiriv)  instructed,  en- 
joined, thee. 


172  Review. 

The  word  which  expresses  investiture  with  of- 
fice is  quite  different,  as  this  very  verse  shows; 
and  the  author  of  Miscellanies^  had  remarked: 
but  this  circumstance,  Dr.  Hobart,  though  not 
sparing  of  his  notes,  passes  over  in  profound 
silence. 

We  come,  at  length,  to  the  decisive  argument 
for  diocesan  Episcopacy — the  powers  exercised  by 
Timothy  and  Titus.  This  is  to  silence  the  last 
battery  of  the  Presbyterians,  and  reduce  them  to 
the  humiliating  necessity  of  surrendering  at  discre- 
tion !  Really  one  would  imagine,  that  the  powers 
of  Timothy  and  Titus  are  a  new  discovery :  and 
that  the  epistles  written  to  them  by  Paul,  had  been 
in  the  custody  of  the  prelates  alone  as  containing 
the  precious  charter  of  their  rights.  But  the  world 
may  believe  us,  upon  our  word  of  verity,  that  we 
have  actually  read  those  epistles  long  ago;  and 
that  the  demonstration,  said  to  be  therein  con- 
tained, of  the  apostolical  institution  of  the  "  sacred 
regiment  of  Bishops,"  has  been  questioned,  yea 
and,  in  our  judgment,  confuted  some  hand- 
ful of  years  before  our  grandfathers  were  born. 
However,  Ecce  iterum  Crispimis  !  Here  it  is  again. 
We  shall  give  unto  thee,  reader,  as  Cyprian  and 
the  Layman  have  given  it  unto  us.  But  we  en- 
treat thy  patience  to  some  preliminary  matter. 

We  think  that  when  the  Episcopal  writers  ap- 

*  Clemens,  No.  1.  Colkc  p.  77. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  173 

peal,  with  so  much  confidence,  to  the  powers  ex- 
ercised by  Timothy,  they  ought  also  to  have 
agreed  as  to  ih&'ojffice  and  rank  of  that  eminent 
man.  Yet  it  is  a  disputed  point  among  them,  at 
this  hour,  whether  he  was  simply  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus,  having  jurisdiction  over  his  presbyters;  or 
an  archbishop,  having  bishops  under  him ;  or  the 
lord  primate  of  Asia,  above  them  all.  If  you  ask 
the  advocates  of  these  several  opinions,  what  was 
precisely  his  authority  }  some  cry  one  thing,  and 
some  another:  for  the  assembly  is  confused;  and 
their  voices  unite  only  in  this.  Great  is  Timothy 
of  the  Ephesians !  We  cannot  refrain  from  trans- 
cribing a  few  remarks  of  the  powerful  and  elo- 
quent Jean  Daille. 

"  Here,"  we  translate  his  own  words,  "  Here 
the  hierarchs,  having  their  imagination  full  of  their 
grand  prelatures,  of  their  bishoprics,  their  arch- 
bishoprics, and  their  primacies,  do  not  fail  to 
dream  of  one  in  these  words  of  the  Apostle.  That 
he  besought  Timothy  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  signi- 
fies, if  you  believe  them,  that  he  made  Timothy 
bishop  of  the  church  of  Ephesus ;  and  not  only 
that,  but  even  Metropolitan,  or  archbishop  of  the 
province ;  and  even  primate  of  all  Asia.  You  see 
how  ingenious  is  the  passion  for  the  crosier  and 
the  mitre  ;  being  able,  in  so  few  and  simple  words, 
to  detect  such  great  mysteries  !  For  where  is  the 
man,  who,  in  the  use  of  his  natural  understand- 
ing without  being  heated  by  a  previous  attach- 


174  Review, 

ment,  could  ever  have  found  so  many  mitres — that 
of  a  Bishop,  that  of  an  Arch-bishop,  and  that  of 
a  Primate,  in  these  two  words,  T^cnd  besovght  Ti- 
mothy to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  ?  Who,  without  the 
help  of  some  extraordinary  passion,  could  ever 
have  made  so  charming  and  so  rare  a  discovery  ?^ 
and  imagine  that  to  beseech  a  man  to  stay  in  a 
city,  means,  to  establish  him  bishop  of  that  city, 
Archbishop  of  the  province,  and  primate  of  all 
the  country  ?  In  very  deed,  the  cause  of  these 
gentlemen  of  the  hierarchy  must  be  reduced  to 
an  evil  plight,t  since  they  are  constrained  to  re- 
sort to  such  pitiful  proofs. "J 

Our  readers  will  hardly  blame  Daille  for  applying 
the  epithet  "  pitiful,"  to  the  argument  of  the  hier- 
archy for  Timothy's  Episcopate,  when  they  see 
that  her  ablest  and  most  resolute  champions  are  at 
irreconcileable  variance  with  each  other  on  this 
very  point :  some  maintaining  it  as  perfectly  con- 

*  Deviner  une  chose  si  belle  &  si  rare  ? — 
f  A  de  mauvais  termes. 

X  Daillf/  Exposition  de  la  premiere  epitre  de  VApotre  Saint 
Paul  d  TimothSe  ;  en  48  sermons  prononcSs  d  Charenton.  Ser7n. 
I.  p.  22,  23.  a  Geneve  1661.  12mo. 

This  is  that  identical  Monsieur  Daille'  whom  Mr.  Bingham 
and,  from  him,  Dr.  Hobart  have  represented  as  friendly  to  Epis- 
copacy.* This  is  that  Jean  Daille'  !  The  prelatical  commenta- 
tors have  played  tricks  with  the  French  preacher ;  which,  if  we 
feel  in  a  humour  for  it,  we  may  one  of  these  days  expose- 

*  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  94,  compared  with  p.  99.  Bingham's  Christian 
Antiquities.     Vol.  U.  p.  799. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  175 

elusive  ;  others  rejecting  it  as  weak  and  frivolous. 
The  mere  fact  of  this  variance  is  a  strong  pre- 
sumption against  the  former,  and  in  favour  of  the 
latter.  For  although  ^  vigorous,  cultivated,  and 
candid  minds  may  be  so  far  warped  by  their 
wishes  as  to  lay  more  stress  upon  an  argument 
for  them  than  it  deserves  ;  yet  it  is  hardly  to  be 
supposed  that  such  minds  will  attribute  to  an 
argument  which,  if  sound,  secures  them  the  victo- 
ry, much  less  importance  than  it  possesses.  If, 
then,  there  are  to  be  found  among  the  advocates 
of  Episcopacy,  men  second  to  none  of  them  in 
learning,  force,  and  sagacity,  who  fairly  give  up 
the  plea  from  Timothy  and  Titus,  the  conclusion 
is,  that  their  concession  is  extorted  against  their 
prejudices  and  interest. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  collision  which  takes 
place,  on  this  subject,  between  the  most  zealous 
supporters  of  prelacy,  we  transcribe  a  part  of  the 
seventh  section  of  the  Appendix  to  Ayton's  Origi- 
nal Constitution  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  has  not 
been  in  our  power  to  compare  all  his  quotations 
with  the  authors,  but  we  have  examined  a  number 
and  they  are  correct. 

"  The  chief  plea  and  argument  of  the  Episcopalians  is  taken 
from  Timothy  and  Titus.  But  however  much  this  is  boasted 
of  by  some,  as  a  conclusive  proof  for  a  diocesan  form  of  church 
government,  and  superior  power  of  Bishops  to  that  of  Presby- 
ters ;  yet  there  is  nothing  adduced  by  them  that  is  more  vio- 
lently opposed  by  others  of  them,  and  in  which  they  are  more 
egregiously   divided.     For  some  of  them  pretend,  that  the 


176  Review. 

Apostle,  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  uses  the  terms 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  promiscuously,  only  to  express  such 
officers  as  are  now  called  Presbyters.  Of  this  opinion  I  take 
Bishop  Hoadley  to  be,  Dr.  Whitby,  Mr.  Dodwell,  and  many 
others  might  be  named. 

"  But  how  contradictory  to  this  is  the  judgment  of  Bishop 
Pearson,  Vindicia.  Lib.  2.  Cap.  13.  Bishop  Taylor,  Episc. 
assert.  P.  85.  Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the  Right  of 
Princes,  Prefac.  p.  15.  and  p.  4,  5.  of  the  Book  :  and  Dr. 
Hammond,  in  a  variety  of  places.  I  say,  how  contradictory 
are  these  sentiments  of  those  prelates  to  this  above  named  ? 
seeing  they  hold,  tl^at  all  those  whom  they  were  to  ordain  were 
proper  bishops,  nay.  Dr.  Hammond's  opinion  is,  that  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  were  Archbishops,  and  had  their  suiFragans 
under  them  ;  and  with  him  bishop  Bull  seems  to  agree,  when 
he  calls  Timothy  Archbishop,  Serm.  on  2  Tim.  iv.  13.  And 
to  these  I  could  add  others  of  the  same  mind.  But,  then  as 
Dr.  Hammond  reckoned,  that  the  Apostles  ordained  no  mere 
Presbyters  at  the  first,  but  only  Bishops,  Annot.  on  Acts  xi.  6, 
14.  so  Dodwell,  Parccnes,  p.  54.  p.  13.  and  p.  102.  p.  33. 
must  certainly  contradict  him  in  this,  when  he  maintains,  that 
the  Apostles  at  the  first  ordained  no  Bishops,  but  simple  Pres- 
byters only  ;  and  that  there  is  no  mention  of  Episcopal 
government  in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  it  was  not  esta- 
blished till  Anno  106.  But  then,  according  to  both  thes«  Doc- 
tors, there  is  one  ofiice  in  the  church  without  scripture  war- 
rant— Presbyters,  according  to  Dr.  Hammond  ;  and  Bishops, 
according  to  Mr.  Dodwell.  But  how  will  they  answer  to  what 
is  advanced  by  Bishop  Burnet,  which  equally  contradicts  them 
both,  Vindic.  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  355.  That  with- 
out Scripture  warrants  no  neic  office  may  be  instituted  1  Besides 
Dr.  Hammond's  conceit  against  Presbyters  not  being  institu- 
ted in  the  New  Testament,  is  opposed  with  all  freedom  by 
Mr.  Maurice,  Defens.  p.  27.  and  by  Bishop  Hoadley,  Brief 
Defence,  p.  113.     Is  it  possible  to  behold   such  wrangling. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  Ill 

without  being  affected  with  a  mixture  both  of  indignation  and 
compassion'?  Is  it  not  matter  of  indignation,  that  men  of 
judgment  and  learning  should  have  such  a  fondness  to  main- 
tain a  cause  that  is  so  precarious,  as  to  drive  them  into  so 
many  schemes  to  defend  it,  and  every  one  of  them  contradic- 
tory to  one  another  1  And  can  it  miss  to  beget  compassion  in 
the  breast  of  every  suicere  Christian,  that  men  of  abilities 
should  bestow  so  much  time  to  perplex  themselves  and  others, 
when  their  labours,  rightly  employed,  might  prove  much  more 
beneficial  to  tlie  Protestant  world  1 

"  But  that  we  may  give  the  world  a  view,  how  inconclusive 
all  these  schemes  and  models  are,  whicli  are  taken  from  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus,  I  shall  give  some  account  of  tlie  minds  of  the 
Episcopalians  at  some  lengtli,  who,  when  adduced,  will  leave 
no  room  for  the  Presbyterians  to  be  in  any  perplexity  in  the 
defence  of  their  estabhshment.  The  first  I  sliall  bring  on  the 
stage  is  tlie  famous  Willet,  Synops.  Papism,  p.  23G.  '  It  is 
most  like  Timothy  had  the  place  and  calling  of  an  evangelist : 
and  the  calling  of  evangelists  and  bishops,  whicli  were  pastors, 
was  divers.'  To  him  let  us  join  the  learned  Stillingfleet,  wlio 
says,  Ircnic.  p.  340.  '  Such  were  the  evangelists,  who  were 
sent  sometimes  into  this  country  to  put  the  church  in  order 
there,  sometimes  into  another;  but  wherever  they  were,  tliey 
acted  as  evangelists,  and  not  as  fixed  officers.  And  such  were 
Timothy  and  Titus,  notwitiistanding  all  the  oj)position  made 
against  it,  as  will  appear  to  any  who  will  take  an  iinpjirtial 
survey  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides,'  &-c.  Nay,  the  Jesuit 
Salmeron,  is  ashamed  of  this  argument,  for  he  says,  Dlsjmt.  1. 
on  1  Tim.  '  It  is  doubtful  if  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus  : 
for  though  he  preached  and  ordained  some  to  the  ministry 
there,  it  follows  not  that  he  was  the  Bishop  of  that  place  ;  for 
Paul  preached  also  there  above  two  years,  and  absolved  the 
penitents,  and  yet  was  not  Bisliop.  Add  that  now  and  then 
the  apostle  called  him  away  unto  himself,  and  sent  him  from 
Rome  to  the  Hebrews  with  his  epistle  ;  and  in  the  second 
Vol.  III.  23 


178  Review. 

epistle,  he  commands  him  to  come  to  him  shortly.  Timothy 
was  also  an  evangelist  of  that  order,  Epli.  4. — So  that  Doro- 
theus  says  in  his  Synopsis^  That  Timotliy  preached  through  all 
Greece  ;  but  he  stayed  at  Ephesus  not  to  be  Bishop,  but  that, 
in  the  constitute  church  of  Ephesus,  he  might  oppose  the  false 
Apostles. — It  appears  therefore  that  he  was  more  than  a  Bi- 
shop, although  for  a  time  he  preached  in  that  city  as  a  pastor, 
and  ordained  some  to  the  ministry.  Hence  it  is,  some  calls 
him  Bishop  in  Ephesus.' 

"  Having  elsewhere  given  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Dr. 
Whitby  at  some  length,  all  that  1  shall  transcribe  from  him  at 
this  time,  is  a  iew  lines  of  what  he  says  in  his  preface  to  the 
Epistle  to  Titus :  '  First,  I  assert,  that  if  by  saying  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  Bishops,  the  one  of  Ephesus,  the  other  of  Crete,  we 
understand  they  look  upon  these  churches  or  dioceses  as  their 
fixed  and  peculiar  charge,  in  which  they  were  to  preside  for 
term  of  life,  I  believe,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  thus 
Bishops.'     See  Chap.  1  and  4. 

"  To  fortify  those  who  have  given  their  assault,  let  me  bring 
in  ]Mr.  Le  Clerc,  in  his  Supplement  to  Dr.  Hammond's  Anno- 
iaiums  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  p.  530.  who  says,  '  The  testi- 
monies of  the  ancients  about  this  matter,  who  judge  rashly  of 
the  times  of  the  apostles  by  their  own,  and  speak  of  them  in 
the  language  of  their  own  age,  are  of  little  moment.  And  so 
do  no  more  prove  that  Titus  was  the  Bishop  of  the  island  of 
Crete,  than  what  Dr.  Hammond  says,  proves  him  to  have  been 
distinguished  with  the  title  of  Archbishop.'  To  the  same  pur- 
pose the  forecited  Dr.  Whitby  says,  '  The  great  controversy 
concerning  this  and  the  epistle  to  Timothy  is,  whether  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  were  indeed  made  Bishops  ;  the  one  in  Ephesus, 
and  the  Pro-consular  Asia,  the  other  of  Crete,  and  having  au- 
thority to  make,  and  jurisdiction  over  so  many  Bishops  as 
were  in  those  precincts  1  Now,  of  this  matter,  I  confess  1  can 
find  nothing  in  any  Avriter  of  the  first  three  centuries, 'and  not 
aoy  intimation,  that  they  bore  that  name.' 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  179 

"  The  judgment  of  the  learned  Whittaker  is  supporting  on 
this  occasion,  as  well  as  in  the  most  of  the  former,  who  says, 
Controv,  4.  Q.  4.  C.  2.  p.  374.  '  In  the  apostle's  times  there 
were  many  things  extraordinary.  There  was  another  form 
of  government  in  tlie  church  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
another  now,  is  acknowledged  by  Stapleton  :  For  it  was  th(>ji 
governed  by  the  apostles,  evangelists,  and  prophets,  but  now 
only  by  pastors  and  doctors  ;  the  rest  are  all  removed.'  From 
this  it  may  justly  be  inferred,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
not  ordinary  officers,  but  they  being  both  evangelists,  are  not 
succeeded  to  by  Bishops.  And  here  I  cannot  but  subjoin  the 
judgment  of  Chrysostom,  whom  our  adversaries,  I  hope,  will 
not  reject  as  an  adversary.  His  words,  as  translated  by  Smec- 
tymnuus,  are  these,  Paul  icould  not  commit  the  ivhole  island 
to  one  man,  but  ivould  have  every  man  appointed  to  his  charge 
and  cure.  For  so  he  knew  his  labour  would  be  the  lighter,  and 
the  people  that  icere  under  him  would  be  governed  ivith  the 
greater  diligence.  For  the  teacher  should  not  be  troubled  with 
the  government  of  many  churches,  but  only  intend  one,  and  study 
for  to  adorn  that.  The  remark  of  Smectymnuus  is  just.  There- 
fore this  was  Titus  his  work,  not  to  be  Bishop  of  Crete  him- 
self, but  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  city,  ichich  was  an  office 
above  that  of  a  Bishop. 

"  But  this  fortification  is  not  able  to  stand  ;  for  the  remark- 
able Mr.  Dodwell,  Pai'oenes.  Sect.  10.  p.  404.  attacks  it  most 
handsomely,  when  he  says,  '  But  truly,  that  the  office  of  [Ti- 
mothy] was  not  fixed,  but  itinerary,  many  arguments  do  evince. 
It  was  required  of  him  to  abide  at  Ephesus,  is  testified  by  the 
Apostle,  1  Tim.  i.  3.  He  was  therefore,  when  thus  demand- 
ed, an  itinerary.  The  work  of  an  Evangelist,  2  Tiin.  vi.  5.  so 
many  journeyings  with  St.  Paul,  and  his  name  being  joined  in 
common  with  the  Apostle,  in  the  inscription  of  the  epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians,  are  all  of  them  arguments  for  this.  Moreover, 
the  apostle  commands  Titus  only  to  ordain,  in  Crete,  Presby- 
ters in  every  city,  Titus  i.  5.      He  says,  he  was  left  there,  that 


180  Review, 

he  might  set  in  order  things  that  were  wanting.  And  he  was 
a  companion  of  the  apostle  when  he  was  left.  And  truly, 
other  places  make  it  appear,  that  he  was  a  companion  of  St. 
Paul,  and  therefore  was  no  more  restricted  to  any  particular 
place  than  tlie  apostle  himself.'  Thus,  the  famous  Dodwell. 
And  from  what  has  heen  said  from  so  many  learned  Episco- 
palian Doctors,  one  may  consider,  how  far  Bishop  Hall  had 
lost  his  senses,  when  he  saith  with  such  a  masterly  air, 
Episcop.  Divine  Right,  Sect.  4.  P.  2.  That  if  Episcopal 
power  of  ordbiation,  and  power  of  ruling  and  censuring  Pres- 
byters, be  not  clear  in  the  aposile^s  charge  to  these  two  Bishops, 
the  one  of  Crete,  and  the  other  of  Ej)hesus,  I  shall  yield  the 
cause,  and  confess  to  want  my  senses.''^ 

"  But  now,  to  dismiss  this  conceit  of  Timothy's  heing 
Bishop  of  Ephesus,  &c.  I  shall  give  the  judgment  of  the 
learned  Willet,  Synojjs.  Papis?n.  Contr.  5.  Q.  3.  '  Neither 
can  it  be  granted  by  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  Lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man,  &c.  that  Timothy  had  this  sole  power  in 
himself;  for,  the  apostle  would  not  give  that  to  him,  which 
he  did  not  take  to  himself,  who  associated   to  him  the  rest 

of  the  Presbyters   in   ordaining  of  Timothy.     It  is 

questioned,  says  he,  if  the  apostle  had  then  constituted  Ti- 
mothy bishop  there  [Ephesus  :]  For,  he  saith,  J^hat  thou 
mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doctrine,^  &-C. 
I  conclude  with  the  judgment  of  the  accurate  Dr.  Barrow, 
Pope''s  Suprem.  p.  82.  whose  words  must  certainly  contra- 
dict this  notion  concerning  Timothy's  Episcopate  ;  for  he 
says,  '  Episcopacy  is  an  ordinary  standing  charge,  affixed 
to  one  standing  place,  and  requiring  a  special  attendance 
there  ;  Bishops  being  Pastors,  who,  as  St.  Chrysostom  says, 
do  sit,  and  are  employed  in  one  place.  Now,  he  that  hath 
such  a  general  charge,  can  hardly  discharge  such  a  particu- 
lar office,  and  he  is  fixed  to  a  particular  attendance,  can 
hardly  look  after  so  general  a  charge.'  Though  this  is 
spoken  with  respect  to  the  Apostles  ;  yet  it  will  equally  hold 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  181 

with  respect  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  I  think,  by  this  time, 
this  strong  bulwark  has  almost  lost  its  beautiful  shapes,  and 
formidable  figures,  and  is  not  capable  of  doing  much  execu- 
tion. The  itinerary  life  of  the  apostles,  according  to  Bar- 
row, is  inconsistent  with  that  of  a  Bishop,  and  must  be  so 
likewise  with  that  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  seeing  they  were 
not  fixed  residenters  in  any  particular  place,  as  is  well  ob- 
served by  Mr.  Dodwell  :  and  it  must  conclude  against  them 
with  equal  force,  if  Dr.  Brett's  notion  be  true,  that  they  were 
both  of  the  Apostolic  order." 

No  equitable  judge  would  censure  us  for  leaving 
these  sons  of  the  hierarchy  to  dash  their  heads 
against  each  other,  and  declining  to  give  ourselves 
any  further  trouble.  We  are  not  obliged  to  inquire 
into  the  claim  which  they  set  up  for  Timothy  or 
Titus,  until  they  «hall  themselves  ascertain  what 
the  claim  is  ;  nor  to  answer  their  plea,  until  they 
shall  cease  to  quarrel  about  its  correctness.  But, 
instead  of  taking  so  mortifying  an  advantage,  we 
shall  meet  the  question  as  it  is  stated  by  Cyprian 
and  the  Layman ;  referring  to  our  readers  for  an 
opinion  whether  or  not  we  are  afraid  to  have  the 
cause  tried  either  at  Ephesus  or  in  Crete;  and 
under  any  form  which  our  Episcopal  friends  shall 
prefer. 

"  lu  Titus  i.  5."  says  Cyprian,  "  it  is  said  by  the  Apostle 
Paul,  *  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest 
ordain  Elders  in  every  city."  Let  us  contemplate  the  circum- 
stances that  attended  tliis  transaction,  and  see  what  inferences 
we  can  draw  from  it.  St.  Paul  had  planted  the  gospel  in  the 
island  of  Crete.  He  had  made  proselytes  in  every  city  who 
stood    in    need  of    the    ministrations    of    Presbyters.     He 


1 82  Review, 

speaks  not  to  Titus  as  if  he  had  left  him  in  Crete  to  convert 
the  cities  to  the  faith.  He  speaks  as  if  this  work  was  ah'eady 
accomphshed,  as  if  the  way  was  paved  for  the  estabHshment 
of  the  Church.  These  being  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
it  appears  to  me  that  this  transaction  carries  on  its  face  a 
proof  of  superiority  on  the  part  of  Titus  to  the  Presbyters  or 
elders.  Will  it  be  imagined  by  any  reasonable  man,  that 
St.  Paul  had  converted  so  many  cities  on  this  island  without 
having  ordained  any  elders  amongst  them  ?  What  !  When 
it  was  liis  uniform  and  invariable  practice  to  ordain  Elders  in 
every  country  in  which  he  made  proselytes  ]  What  !  Could 
he  have  neglected  to  ordain  those  amongst  them  who  were 
absolutely  necessary  to  transact  the  affairs  of  the  Church 
during  his  absence  1  Would  he  have  left  the  work  he  had 
begun  only  half  performed  ? 

"  These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  convince  every  un- 
prejudiced mind  that  there  were  Elders  ©r  Presbyters  in  the 
Church  of  Crete  at  the  time  St.  Paul  left  Titus  on  that  island. 
And  if  there  were  Presbyters,  and  those  Presbyters  had  the 
power  of  ordination,  why  was  it  necessary  to  leave  Titus 
amongst  them  in  order  to  perform  a  task  that  might  as  well 
have  been  accomphshed  without  him  1  If  the  Presbyters 
possessed  an  authority  equal  to  that  of  Titus,  would  not  St. 
Paul,  by  leaving  him  amongst  them,  have  taken  the  surest 
way  to  interrupt  the  peace  of  the  Church,  to  engender  jea- 
lousy, and  strifes,  and  contentions "?  Again.  Let  us  view 
this  transaction  in  another  point  of  light.  St.  Paul  had  made 
converts,  as  I  have  said,  in  every  city  of  Crete.  Titus  had 
attended  him  on  his  last  visit  to  that  island.  If  Presbyters 
were  at  this  time  considered  as  competent  to  the  task  of  or- 
daining others,  why  did  he  not  ordain  one  at  any  rate  during 
his  stay  amongst  them,  and  commission  him  instead  of  de- 
taining Titus,  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  city  1  The  efforts 
of  Titus  were  as  much  wanted  as  his  own,  to  carry  the  light 
of  the  gospel  to  other  nations  who  had  not  received  it.  Why 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  183 

was  it  necessary  that  Titus  should  ordain  Elders  in  every  city  ? 
After  the  ordination  of  a  feio^  would  not  Ids  exertions  have 
become  useless,  if  they  were  able  to  complete  the  work  which 
he  had  begun  1 

*'  In  short,  Titus  seems  to  be  entrusted  with  all  the  autho- 
rity of  a  supreme  ruler  of  the  Church.  He  is  directed  to 
ordain  Presbyters — to  rebuke  with  all  authority — to  admo- 
nish hereticks,  and  in  case  of  obstinacy,  to  reject  them  from 
the  communion  of  the  Church.  These  circumstances  infal- 
libly designate  the  presence  of  a  Bishop.  Accordingly  we 
find  that  the  united  voice  of  ancient  writers  declares  him  to 
have  been  the  first  Bishop  of  Crete.  Eusebius  informs  us 
'  that  he  received  Episcopal  authority  over  the  Church  of 
Crete.'  So  also  says  Theodoret,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Jerome, 
St.  Ambrose.  If  these  considerations  united  do  not  show 
that  Titus  possessed  in  Ephesus  powers  superior  to  those 
which  were  held  by  the  Presbyters  of  those  Churches,  I  know 
not  what  considerations  would."* 
And  again  : 

"  The  case  of  Timothy  alone,  had  we  no  other  evidence 
from  Scripture,  would,  when  taken  into  connexion  with  the 
testimony  of  ancient  writers,  be  perfectly  satisfactory  to  me. 
This  alone  demonstrates  all  that  we  can  desire.  He  was 
placed  by  St.  Paul  to  superintend  the  Church  of  Ephesus. 
This  case  is  even  stronger  than  was  that  of  Titus  in  Crete. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  had  long  been  Presbyters  in 
the  Church  of  Ephesus.  Listen  then  to  the  language  which 
St.  Paul  speaks  in  his  Epistles  to  him,  and  see  if  it  is  possi- 
ble that  he  possessed  no  superiority  over  the  Presbyters  of 
that  Church.  '  1  besought  thee,'  says  he  to  Timothy,  *  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus  when  I  went  into  Macedonia,  that 
thou  mightest  charge  some  that  they  teach  no  other  doc- 
trine.'    Would  Timothy  have  been   commissioned  to  charge 

*     Ctprian,  No.  II.  Collec.  p.  64,  65. 


184  Review. 

the  Presbyters  to  teach  no  other  doctrine  had  he  possessed 

no  superiority  over  them  ?  Would  they  not  have  had  a  right 
to  resist  any  attempts  at  a  control  of  this  kind  as  an  en- 
croachment on  their  privileges  ?  Again,  Timothy  is  direct- 
ed to  try  and  examine  the  Deacons,  whether  they  be  blame- 
less or  not.  If  they  prove  themselves  worthy,  he  is  to  admit 
them  into  the  office  of  a  Deacon ;  and  upon  a  faithful  dis- 
charge of  that  office,  they  are  to  be  elevated  to  a  higher  sta- 
tion. '  Likewise,'  says  he,  '  must  the  Deacons  be  grave,  not 
double-tongued,  not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy 
lucre,  holding  the  mystery  of  faith  in  a  pure  conscience.' 
'  Let  these  also  be  first  proved,  and  then  let  them  use  the 
office  of  a  Deacon,  being  found  blameless.'  Here  we  find 
no  mention  made  of  the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus,  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  Deacons.  They  are  not  associated  with  him  at  all 
in  the  work.  Does  not  this  indicate,  does  it  not  demonstrate 
a  superiority  of  power  on  the  part  of  Timothy  ?  Timothy  is 
also  exhorted  to  'lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man.'  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  a  recognition  even  of  the  co-operation  of 
Presbyters  with  him.  He  seems  to  be  the  supreme  and  the 
only  agent  in  the  transaction  of  these  affairs. 

"Now,  I  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  had 
the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus  possessed  an  authority  equal  to 
that  of  Timothy ;  had  they,  like  him,  possessed  the  power  of 
ordination,  would  not  St.  Paul  have  recognized  their  agency 
in  connexion  with  his  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  to  treat 
them  with  improper  neglect  not  to  mention  them  ?  But  what 
consummates  our  evidence  on  this  point,  and  places  the  sub- 
ject beyond  all  doubt,  is  the  charge  which  St.  Paul  gives  to 
Timothy  in  relation  to  the  penal  discipline  he  was  to  exercise 
over  his  Presbyters.  Timothy  is  required  to  '  receive  an  ac- 
cusation against  an  elder  or  Presbyter,  only  before  two  or 
three  witnesses.'  '  Them,  (that  is,  those  amongst  the  Pres- 
byters,) that  sin,  rebuke  before  all,  that  others  also  may  fear.' 
Can  any  one  imagine  that  Timothy  would  have  been  com- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  185 

missioned  to  listen  to  accusations  made  against  Presbyters^ 
openly  to  rebuke  them^  had  not  his  authority  transcended 
theirs  ?  Does  not  this  single  circumstance  unquestionably 
establish  the  point  of  his  superiority  ?  '  The  man,'  says  a  learn- 
ed and  ingenious  writer  of  our  country,  '  who  shall  not  find 
a  Bishop  in  Ephesus,  will  be  puzzled  to  find  one  in  England.'** 
"  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  case  that  could  be  more  clear  and 
unequivocal,  that  could  speak  more  loudly  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,  than  the  case  of  Timothy  in  Ephesus. 
He  is  obviously  intrusted  with  apostolic  authority.  Every 
thing  which  the  Apostle  could  do  in  his  own  person,  he  com- 
missions Timothy  to  perform  during  his  absence.  He  is  to 
adjust  the  affairs  of  the  church  ;  he  is  to  prove  and  examine 
Deacons  ;  he  alone  is  to  ordain  them  ;  he  alone  is  recognized 
in  the  performance  of  the  task  of  ordaining  Elders  or  Pres- 
byters ;  he  possesses  perfect  control  over  these  Presbyters. 
If  they  are  guilty  of  any  offences  or  misdemeanours,  he  is 
to  inflict  punishment  upon  them.  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  case 
more  satisfactory  in  proof  of  the  apostolic  original  of  the 
Episcopal  form  of  Church  government.  Had  Timothy  been 
of  the  same  order  witli  the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus,  can  it  be 
imagined  that  the  Apostle  would,  by  elevating  him  to  such 
high  privileges  amongst  them,  have  endangered  the  peace  of 
the  Church,  have  taken  a  step  so  well  calculated  to  excite  dis- 
content and  dissatisfaction  amongst  the  remaining  Presbyters 
or  Elders  ]  This  cannot"  be  imagined.  Timothy  was  then 
undeniably  intrusted  with  Episcopal  authority  in  the  Church 
of  Ephesus  ;  he  was  the  Bishop  of  that  place.  This  is  prov- 
ed by  the  concurring  voice  of  ancient  writers.  Eusebius  tells 
us  '  that  he  was  the  first  Bishop  of  the  province  or  diocese  of 
Ephesus.'  The  anonymous  author  of  his  life  in  Phocius 
says,  *  that  he  was  the  first  that  acted  as  Bishop  in  Ephe- 
sus, and  that  he  was  ordained  Bishop  of  the  metropolis  of 
Ephesus  by  the  great  St.  Paul.'     In  the   council  of  Chalce- 

*  Dr.  Bowden,  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Stiles. 
Vol.  III.  24 


1 86  Review. 

don  twenty-seven  bishops  are  said  to  have  succeeded  in  that 
chair  from  Timothy.  To  prove  the  same  point  gjoes  the  tes- 
mony  of  St.  Clirysjostom  and  Theodoret ;  and  in  the  aposto- 
lical constitutions  we  are  expressly  told,  that  he  was  ordained 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St.  Paul."* 

The  Layman  speaks  to  the  same  purpose.  ' 
"  In  whom  was  the  power  of  ordination  vested  in  the 
Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete  ?  Clearly  in  Timothy  and 
Titus  alone.  Them  alone  the  apostle  addresses,  and  them 
alone  he  speaks  of  as  ordaining  Elders,  or  as  committing-  the 
things  they  had  received  from  him  to  faithful  men,  capable 
of  teacliing  others.  Is  this  not  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
Presbyterian  system  ?  What  individual  among  them  could 
with  propriety  be  addressed  as  the  apostle  addresses  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  ?  Not  one.  The  power  among  them  is  in  a 
numerous  body  of  equals^  lest  there  should  be  '  lords  over 
GocVs  heritage.''  The  power,  in  Ephesus  and  Crete,  was  in 
Timothy  and  Titus,  to  whom  the  Presbyters  were  subject, 
liable  to  be  tried  and  punished  for  misconduct.  It  is  on  this 
plain  statement  of  ftxcts,  relative  to  Ephesus  and  Crete,  as 
well  as  to  other  churches,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  uni- 
form and  uninterrupted  testimony  of  the  church  universal  for 
fifteen  hundred  years,  that  Episcopalians  rest  their  cause. 
They  have  never  endeavoured  to  derive  arguments  from  the 
names  made  use  of.  This  has  been  the  practice,  exclusively, 
of  the  advocates  of  parity.  Driven  from  the  ground  of  fact,, 
not  able  to  deny  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  supreme 
Governors  in  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete,  possess- 
ing alone  the  power  of  ordination,  they  say  that  Timothy 
is  called  a  Presbyter,  and  was  therefore  upon  a  level  with 
those  very  elders  whom  he  ruled,  whom  he  could  control  as 
to  the  doctrines  they  preached,  whom  he  had  power  to  tiy 
and  to  punish  !"t 

*  Cyprian,  No.  III.  ColUc.  p.  74,  75. 
+  Layman,  No,  V.   Collec,  p.  56, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  187 

"  It  is  very  easy,"  says  he,  "  to  see  why  the  advocates  of 
parity  would  exckide  from  view  the  situation  of  Timothy  in 
the  church  of  Ephesus,  since  it  carries  absohste  death  to 
their  cause.  Is  it  an  immaterial  circumstance  tiiat  Timothy 
ruled  the  whole  church  of  Ephesus,  both  cler2;y  and  laity, 
the  Elders  or  Presbyters  being  subject  to  his  spiritual  juris- 
diction \  Is  it  an  immaterial  circumstance  that  Timothy  alone 
exercised  the  power  of  ordaining  Ministers,  and  thus  of  con- 
veying- the  sacerdotal  authority  ?  Yf  hat  then  becomes  of  the 
doctrine  of  parity  ?  Destroyed,  utterly  destroyed.  The  Church 
of  Ephesus,  planted  by  St.  Paul,  and  placed,  by  that  Apos- 
tle, under  the  government  of  Timothy,  was  constructed  upon 
a  totally  different  principle.  It  had,  in  Timothy,  a  Bishop, 
possessing  jurisdiction  over  the  other  clergy,  and  exercising 
all  the  powers  which  are  claimed  for  the  Bishops  of  the 
church  now.  Is  it  of  no  consequence  that  the  ancients,  who 
speak  on  the  subject,  unanimously  represent  Timothy  as  the 
first  Bishop  of  Ephesus  1  What  says  Eusebius  1  '  He  v/as 
the  first  Bishop  of  the  province  or  diocese  of  Ephesus.'  Eccl. 
Hist.  Bib.  iii.  chap.  4.  What  savs  Chrvsostom  ?  '  It  is  ma- 
nifest  Timothy  was  intrusted  with  a  whole  nation,  viz.  Asia.' 
Horn,  lotii  in  1  Tim.  v.  19.  Theodoret  calls  him  the  Apos- 
tle of  the  Asiatics.  The  Apostolical  constitutions  expressly 
tell  us  that  he  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St.  Paul ; 
and  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  twenty-seven  Bishops  are 
said  to  have  succeded  him  in  the  government  of  that  Church. 

"  We  are  perfectly  safe,  then,  so  far  as  relates  to  Timothy, 
in  resting  our  cause  upon  the  situation  which  he  occupied  at 
Ephesus,  and  on  the  powers  which  he  exercised  there. 
The  constitution  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  was  undeniably 
Episcopal.  This  part  of  the  subject  the  advocates  of  parity 
do  not  choose  to  meddle  with,  running  off  constantly  to  the 
term  Presbytery^  that  poor  word  being  the  chief  basis  of  their 
cause."* 

•  Proscript  to  the  Layman,  No.  VIII.  Collec.  p.  81. 


188  R 


eview. 


And  thus  the  Episcopal  arm  has  "  carried  death 
to  our  cause  !"  And  thus  "  the  doctrine  of  pari- 
ty" is  "  destroyed,  utterly  destroyed  I" 

Not  so  fast,  good  Mr.  Layman.  We  have  an 
objection  or  two  to  such  a  settlement  of  our  af- 
fairs ;  and  shall  take  the  liberty  of  stating  them. 

The  reader  will  remember  that  we  confine  our- 
selves, at  present,  to  the  Scriptural  argument ;  and 
therefore  shall  not  notice  any  quotations  from  the 
Fathers.  One  thing  at  a  time  ;  and  every  thing 
in  its  place. 

This  is  the  argument  w^hich  the  Layman  tells 
us  "  the  advocates  of  parity  do  not  choose  to 
meddle  with."  If  it  be  so,  the  terrour  is  needless. 
But  the  assertion  is  only  a  polemical  flourish,  such 
as  the  Layman  is  accustomed  to  make  for  the 
entertainment  of  his  friends  :  the  fact,  as  usual, 
being  quite  the  other  way.  For  if  he  will  be  at 
the  trouble,  for  the  first  time,  as  we  presume,  in 
his  life,  to  inspect  the  writings  of  the  advocates  of 
parity  at  any  period  from  the  reformation  to  this 
day,  he  w^ill  find  that  they  have  not  only  "  med- 
dled" with  his  argument,  but  so  mauled  and  maim- 
ed it,  so  battered  and  crushed  it,  that  even  skilful 
diocesan  doctors  have  given  it  up  for  dead,  and 
wondered  at  that  delirious  fondness  which,  in- 
stead of  decently  interring  it,  insisted  upon  keep- 
ing it  above  ground.  Its  ghost,  however,  seems 
disquieted,  and  walks  in  company  with  the  Lay- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  189 

man  and  Cyprian,  to  frighten  the  Presbyterian 
women  and  children — We  must  lay  it. 

Merriment  apart — What  do  these  long  extracts, 
with  their  glowing  interrogations,  prove  ?  Why, 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  superior  to  Presby- 
ters !  Who  denies  it  ?  "  What !  do  you  allow 
that  they  had,  severally,  the  power  of  ordaining 
to  the  ministry,  by  their  sole  authority  ?"  Yes, 
we  do  !  That  they  had  authority  to  inquire  into 
the  doctrines  taught  by  Presbyters  ?"  Yes.  "  To 
coerce  the  unruly  t^''  Yes.  '*  To  expel  the  hereti- 
cal .'^"  Yes — We  never  thought  of  disputing  it — 
"  Then,  certainly,  they  were  diocesan  Bishops  !" 
C^est  une  autre  affaire^  Monsieur.  That  is  another 
point.  W^e  admit  the  premises  here  stated,  but 
deny  the  conclusion.  Timothy  and  Titus  could 
do  all  these  things  without  being  diocesan  Bi- 
shops. An  apostle  could  do  them  in  virtue  of  his 
apostolic  office  :  an  evangelist,  as  Timothy,  and 
consequently,  Titus,  undoubtedly  was,"^  could  do 
them  in  virtue  of  his  office  as  an  evangelist ;  and 
yet  be  very  unhke  a  diocesan  bishop.  And  to  in- 
fer that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  bishops  in  the 
prelatical  sense  of  the  term,  because  they  enjoy- 
ed a  pre-eminence  and  an  authority  which  they 
might  enjoy  without  being  such  bishops  at  all,  is  to 
abuse  the  understanding  of  the  reader.  Our  op- 
ponent ought  to  prove  not  only  that  they  exer- 

•  2  Tim.  iv.  5.     '*  Do  the  work  of  an  Evangelist." 


190  Review, 

cised  the  powers  enumerated,  but  that  they  did 
so  as  ordinary  officers  in  ivhom  a  j^recedent  was  set 
for  the  future  government  of  the  church.  He  must 
prove  that  their  powers  were  not  an  appendage  of 
their  special  and  extraordinary  character.^  hke  the 
powers  pecuhar  to  the  apostohc  character.  This 
he  neither  has  done,  nor  is  able  to  do  :  and  thus 
the  boasted  demonstration  of  Episcopacy  from 
the  history  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  is  a  mere  beg- 
ging of  the  question — taking  for  granted  the  very 
thing  in  dispute. 

Let  us  apply  this  all  conquermg  argument  to 
other  cases  which  appear  to  be  perfectly  parallel. 

Episcopal  argument, 

Titus  ordained  elders  in  every  city — Therefore 
Titus  was  Bishop  of  Crete. 

Parallelism, 

Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  elders  in  every 
church,  to  wit,  in  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch, 
at  least* — Therefore  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  joint 
Bishops  of  I.ystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch. 

Episcopal  argument, 

Timothy  instructed  and  charged  the  Ephesian 
elders — Therefore  he  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus  ! 

Parallolism, 

Paul  instructed  and  charged  the  Ephesian  el- 
derst — Therefore  Paul  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus. 

•Act.  xiv.  20,  21.  23.  f  Act.  xx.  17,  Slc. 


Kssays  on  Episcopacy.  191 

Episcopal  argument, 

Timothy  had  power  to  inflict  censure  on  Pres- 
byters, and  even  to  excommunite  heretics — T/isre- 
fore  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus. 

Parallelism. 

Paul  had  power  to  excommunicate  offenders  in 
the  Corinthian  church* — Therefore  Paul  was  Bi- 
shop of  Corinth. 

The  parallel  might  be  run  further  :  but  the  fore- 
going will  evince,  that  the  very  same  mode  of 
reasoning  which  proves  Timothy  to  have  been  Bi- 
shop of  Ephesus,  and  Titus  of  Crete,  will  also 
prove  every  one  of  the  Apostles  to  have  been  bi- 
shop of  every  place  where  he  exercised  any  of 
those  functions  which  the  Episcopal  church  has 
restrained  to  her  prelates.  This  her  advocates 
know  to  be  absurd ;  and  so  does  all  the  world 
beside.  And  yet  let  them  show,  if  they  can,  tiiat 
our  argument  for  the  diocesan  ubiquity  of  the 
apostles,  is  not  fully  as  fair  and  as  conclusive  as 
their  own  for  the  bishopricks  of  Timothy  and 
Titus ;  and  is  not  founded  on  the  very  same  prin- 
ciples. 

There  is  nothing  else  in  the  Layma,n  or  Cyprian, 
which  has  even  the  shadow  of  an  argument,  un- 
less it  be  such  suggestions  as  these  : 

"  Will  it  be  imagined  by  any  reasonable  man,  that  St.  Paul 
had  converted  so  many  cities  on  this  island,"  (Crete,)  '•  with- 

•  1  Cor.  V.  5. 


192  Review, 

out  having  ordained  any  elders  amongst  them  1  What !  when 
it  was  his  uniform  and  invariable  practice  to  ordain  elders  in 
every  country  in  wliich  he  made  proselytes  1  What !  could  he 
have  neglected  to  ordain  those  amongst  them  who  were  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  transact  the  affairs  of  the  church  in  his  ab- 
sence 1  JWould  he  have  left  the  work  he  had  begun  only  hali 
performed?"* 

Cyprian  sets  himself  down  in  his  study  at  Alba- 
ny, and,  knowing  infinitely  more  than  any  author 
sacred  or  profane  has  told  him,  first  determines 
what  the  Apostle  ought  to  have  done  seventeen  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  ago  in  Crete  :  next,  very  wise- 
ly concludes  that  Paul,  being  also  a  wise  man,  ac- 
tuaUy  did  as  he,  Cyprian,  has  laid  down  and  deter- 
mined ;  then,  furnishes  the  churches  of  Crete  with 
Presbyters ;  and,  wanting  still  more,  manufactures 
Titus  into  a  Bishop  to  supply  the  deficiency.  Ex- 
cellent !  But  where  did  Cyprian  get  his  facts  ? 
Where  did  he  learn  so  positively  what  was  Paul's 
"  uniform  and  invariable  practice,"  in  the  article 
of  ordination  ?  He  ought  to  have  been  cautious 
of  affronting  his  old  guide,  whose  account  of  Paul's 
"  practice,"  is  entirely  different  from  his  own. 

"  One  qualification  for  a  Bishop  was,  that  he 
should  not 'be  (NtoifVToq)  a  novice:  that  is,  one 
newly  converted;  time  being  required  to  prove 
men  before  they  could  be  intrusted  with  the  care 
of  the  church.  And  therefore  the  Apostles  used 
not  to  ordain  ministers  in  any  place  before  the  second 
time  of  their  coming  thither — Sometimes,  when  they 

*  Cyprian,  as  above. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  193 

had  no  prospect  of  returning,  they  gave  others  a 
commission  to  ordain  ministers.  For  which  reason 
Titus  was  left  in  Crete  by  St.  Paul  to  ordain  fmnis- 
ters  in  all  cities.  But  there  will  scarce  be  found 
any  instance  of  their  ordaining  ministers  at  the^r^-^ 
time  of  their  coming  to  any  place."^ 

It  was  rather  bold  in  Cyprian  to  chastise  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  whom  on  other  occa- 
sions he  so  implicitly  follow^s.  for  be-infj  i^morant  of 
Paul's  "  uniform  and  invariable  practice :"  but 
there  is  something  bolder  behind :  for,  if  we  mis- 
take not,  the  rector's  rod  has  reached  the  back  of 
the  Apostle  himself  He  broadly  insinuates,  that 
Paul  could  not,  without  culpable  negligence,  have 
omitted  to  create  officers  who  were  necessary  to 
transact  the  affairs  of  the  church  in  his  absence; 
and  that  had  he  done  so,  he  would  have  left  his 
work  only  half  performed.  Now^  it  so  happens  that 
Paul,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  did  not  fur- 
nish the  churches  in  Crete  with  the  requisite  of- 
ficers, or  else  he  left  Titus  to  ordain  such  as  were 
not  absolutely  necessary — he  did  actually  leave 
*.he  work  he  had  begun  unfinished ;  whether  only 
*  half  performed,"  or  one  third,  or  two  thirds, 
ie  does  not  say ;  but  so  much  was  undone  as  to 
lemand  the  stay  of  Titus  to  complete  it  The 
express  terms  of  his  commission  are,  "  That  thou 
shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,'^'' 
or,  as  the  margin  of  our  English  version  has  it,  the 

*  Potter.   Discourse  on  Church  Government,  p.  101,  102. 
Vol.  III.  25 


194  Review. 

things  that  are  "  left  undone^^''*  and  one  of  these 
things,  as  the  very  next  words  indicate,  was  the 
ordination  of  Presbyters — "  and  ordain  Elders  in 
every  city."  Cyprian's  assumption,  therefore,  that 
Paul  ordained  Presbyters  in  Crete,  is  without  a 
particle  of  evidence.  There  is  not  a  syllable  in 
the  whole  narrative,  from  which  we  can  infer  that 
there  was  a  single  Presbyter  in  the  island  at  his 
departure.  The  contrary  inference  is  much  the 
more  natural.  If  Titus  was  instructed  to  ordain 
Presbyters  in  every  city,  the  presumption  is,  that 
none  had  been  ordained  hitherto.  For,  to  turn  the 
edge  of  Cyprian's  weapon  against  himself,  it  is 
very  improbable  that  the  Apostle  in  organizing  the 
several  churches,  would  begin  to  ordain  Presby- 
ters; would  stop  in  the  middle  of  his  business;  hie 
off  to  another  place ;  do  the  same  sort  of  half 
work  there;  and  so  from  city  to  city;  and  then 
send  Titus  upon  a  travelhng  tour  to  compensate 
for  the  deficiencies  occasioned  by  his  haste,  his 
neghgence,  or  his  whim.  But  so  it  is.  Titus 
shall  be  Bishop  of  Crete.  The  proof  of  his  title 
will  fail  if  there  be  no  Presbyters  there — Well, 
then,  there  shall  be  Presbyters  there,  or  else  Paul 
shall  be  convicted  of  neglecting  his  duty  : — But 
Paul  did  not  neglect  his  duty;  therefore  there 
were  Presbyters  in  Crete  when  he  left  it ;  therefore 
Titus  was  a  Bishop.  Excellently  well  reasoned, 
Mr.  Rector  !    And  so — "  Fair  play,"  interrupts  an 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  195 

Episcopal  voice,  "it  does  not  follow  from  the  re- 
presentation of  Cyprian,  that  Paul  ordained  some 
elders  in  every  city ;  and  left  Titus  to  ordain  the 
rest.  His  words  will  bear  another  meaning  :  viz. 
that  the  full  complement  of  Presbyters  were  or- 
dained in  some  cities,  but  none  at  all  in  others  : 
and  that  Titus  was  directed  to  ordain  in  these, 
which  would  not  have  been  necessary,  had  Pres- 
byters possessed  the  power  of  ordination:  seeing 
that  those  of  one  district  might  have  ordained  for 
another,  as  is  done  at  this  day  by  the  Presbyte- 
rians. And  so,  Mr.  Reviewer,  you  are  still  in  the 
wrong,  and  Titus  is  a  Bishop.'' 

Not  yet^  if  you  please,  dear  Sir.  Allowing  your 
premises,  your  conclusion  is  not  good.  The 
Presbyters  newly  ordained  had  abundance  of  oc- 
cupation, with  very  little  experience.  A  proper 
choice  of  officers  in  the  first  instance  was  all  im- 
portant to  the  infant  churches.  Titus  had  supe- 
riour  qualifications  for  making  a  wise  selection ; 
he  could  also  resolve  many  difficuhies  which  might 
have  been  too  hard  for  others.  He  was  deputed 
by  the  Apostle  to  set  every  thing  in  order  through 
the  island,  that  when  he  should  be  gone  the  stated 
officers  might  have  less  trouble.  In  ordaining 
Presbyters  he  was  doing  the  work  of  an  Evange- 
list. The  churches  were  organized  in  the  best 
manner,  and  with  the  greatest  expedition;  while 
the  Presbyters  were  permitted  to  superintend, 
without  distraction,  the  flocks  just  committed  to 


196  Review, 

their  care.  There  is  no  example  of  the  Apostle's 
calling  away  Presbyters  from  their  charges  im- 
mediately after  their  erection,  and  sending  them 
round  the  country  to  ordain  others.  This  was  the 
appropriate  employment  of  the  apostles  themselves^  and 
their  assistants^  the  evangelists.  They  established 
the  evangelical  order,  and  consigned  it  to  the  or- 
dinary ministry.  Presbyters,  therefore,  might  have 
been  ordained  in  some  cities,  (although  this  is  a 
mere  supposition  ;)  Titus  might,  notwithstanding, 
ordain  others  in  the  remaining  cities,  and  yet  not 
be  Bishop  of  Crete.  And  certainly  if  his  ordain- 
ing some  elders  proves  him  to  have  been  Bishop 
of  that  island  ;  PauVs  ordaining  some,  proves  him 
also  to  have  been  her  Bishop. 

Having  exposed  the  weakness  and  vanity  of  the 
argument,  drawn  for  diocesan  Episcopacy  from 
the  examples  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  we  might  rest 
the  cause  here :  but  we  advance  a  step  further, 
and  offer,  what  no  laws  of  discussion  exact  from 
us,  to  establish  the  negative.  That  is,  the  proof, 
as  we  have  manifested,  that  they  were  such  Bishops, 
having  miserably  failed,  we  shall  assign  reasons 
for  our  conviction  that  they  were  not, 

1.  The  very  terms  of  their  commission  favour  us. 

What  does  Paul  say?  That  he  gave  Ephesus  to 
Timothy,  and  Crete  to  Titus,  as  their  regular  and 
permanent  charges  ?  No :  nothing  hke  it.  The 
former  staid,  at  the  Apostle's  request,  to  resist  the 
inroads  of  false  doctrine,  which  had  begun  to  in- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  IW 

feet  some  of  the  public  teachers.  The  latter  to 
finish  the  organization  of  the  churches  begun  by 
the  Apostle  himself*.  Each,  then,  had  a  specific 
charge,  relating  not  to  the  government  of  settlea 
churches,  but  to  iheix preparation  for  it;  or  to  the 
correction  of  abuses  for  restoring  and  preserving 
their  purity.  In  both  cases  the  charge  was  tem- 
porary. Paul  seized  these  occasions  to  furnish 
his  substitutes  with  written  directions  containing  a 
manual  of  general  instruction  to  them,  and  through 
them  to  the  future  ministry ;  and,  with  such  an  ob- 
ject in  view,  it  was  perfectly  natural  for  him  to 
compress  into  his  mstructions  so  great  a  compass 
of  matter. 

2.  Paul's  mode  of  addressing  Timothy  implies 
that  Ephesus  was  not  his  peculiar  charge.  I  be- 
sought thec^  says  he,  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus.  A 
strange  formula  of  appointment  to  a  man's  proper 
station  !  it  carries  a  strong  and  evident  implica- 
tion, that  Timothy  remained  there  not  because  it 
was  his  diocese,  but  to  gratify  the  apostle  by  at- 
tending to  the  exigencies  of  the  pubhc  service.  It 
bespeaks  reluctance  in  Timothy  to  stay  behind ; 
Paul  had  to  entreat  him.  All  which,  again,  is  en- 
tirely natural  upon  the  supposition  of  his  being 
the  apostle's  companion  and  assistant  in  planting 
churches :  but  offensive  and  monstrous  upon  the 
supposition  of  his  being  bishop  of  Ephesus. 

"  For  why,"  says  Daille',  beseech  a  Bishop  to 
"  remain  in  his  diocese  ?     Is  it  not  to  beseech  a 


198 


ieview* 


man  to  stay  in  a  place  to  which  he  is  bound  ?  1 
should  not  think  it  strange  to  beseech  him  to  leave 
it,  if  his  service  were  needed  elsewhere.  But  to 
beseech  him  to  abide  in  a  place  where  his  charge 
obliges  him  to  be,  and  which  he  cannot  forsake 
without  offending  God  and  neglecting  his  duty,  is, 
to  say  the  truth,  not  a  very  civil  entreaty ;  as  it 
plainly  presupposes  that  he  has  not  his  duty  much 
at  heart,  seeing  one  is  under  the  necessity  of  be- 
seediing  him  to  do  it.'** 

This  is  the  language  of  good  sense — No  squeez- 
ing; no  twisting;  no  forcing;  all  which  the  hie- 
rarchy must  do  when  she  puts  into  the  mouth  ot 
Paul  such  an  awkward,  bunghng  speech  as,  /  be- 
sought thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  ; — for — "  1  con- 
stituted thee  bishop  of  Ephesus."  We  shall,  how- 
ever, suggest  an  improvement,  for  which  we  look 
for  the  benedictions,  of  some  gentlemen  in  lawn  ; 
viz.  That  Timothy  being  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  and 
relishing  confinement  to  his  charge  so  little  as  to 
lay  the  Apostle  under  a  necessity  o^  beseeching  him 
to  stay  in  it,  affords  the  best  possible  precedent 
and  plea  for  priests  and  Bishops  wtio  had  rather 
be  detected  any  where  than  in  their  parishes  and 
dioceses — except — at  tything  time. 

3.  "If  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus,  it  must 
be  when  the  first  epistle  was  written.  For  it  is  in 
that  epistle  in  which  he  is  said  to  receive  his  pre- 
tended charge  of  exercising  his  Episcopal  power 

*  Daille',  ci-dtssus,  p.  23. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  199 

in  ordination  and  jurisdiction.  But  now  this  first 
epistle  was  written  when  Paul  was  at  Macedonia, 
as  the  learned,  both  new  and  old,  Papists  and  Pro- 
testants, agree.  And  it  was  after  this  when  Paul 
came  to  Miletum  accompanied  with  Timothy,  and 
sends  for  the  elders  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus 
unto  him,  and  commends  the  government  of  the 
Church  unto  these  Elders,  whom  he  calls  Bishops. 
Now  surely  if  Timothy  had  been  constituted  their 
Bishop,  (in  the  sense  of  our  adversaries,)  the 
Apostle  would  not  have  called  the  elders  Bishops 
before  their  Bishop's  face,  and  instead  of  giving  a 
charge  to  the  Elders  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ, 
he  would  have  given  that  charge  to  Timothy,  and 
not  to  them :  and  no  doubt  he  would  have  given 
some  directions  to  the  Elders  how  to  carry  them- 
selves towards  their  Bishop.  And  because  none 
of  these  things  were  done,  it  is  a  clear  demonstra- 
tion to  us,  that  Timothy  was  not  at  that  time 
Bishop  of  Ephesus. 

"  To  avoid  the  force  of  this  argument,  there  are 
some  that  say,  that  Timothy  was  not  made  Bishop 
of  Ephesus  till  after  Paul's  first  being  a  prisoner  at 
Rome,  which  was  after  his  being  at  Miletum.  But 
these  men,  while  they  seek  to  avoid  the  Scylla  of 
one  inconvenience,  fall  into  the  Charybdis  of  ano- 
ther as  great.  For  if  Timothy  was  not  made 
Bishop  till  Paul's  first  being  at  Rome,  then  he  was 
not  Bishop  when  the  first  Epistle  was  written  to 
him  (which  all  agree  to  be  written  before  that 


200  Review. 

time.)  And  then  it  will  also  follow,  that  all  that 
charge  that  was  laid  upon  him,  both  of  ordination 
and  jurisdiction,  and  that  entreating  of  him  to  abide 
at  Ephesus,  was  given  to  him  not  as  to  the  Bishop 
of  Ephesus,  (which  he  was  not,)  but  as  to  an  ex- 
traordinary officer,  sent  thither  upon  special  occa- 
sion, with  a  purpose  of  returning  when  his  work 
imposed  was  finished.  From  both  these  conside- 
rations we  may  safely  conclude, 

"  That  if  Timothy  were  neither  constituted 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  before  PauPs  first  being  pri- 
soner at  Rome,  nor  after ;  then  he  was  not  con- 
stituted Bishop  at  all.  But  he  was  neither  con- 
stituted Bishop  before  nor  after,  &;c.  Ergo^  not 
at  all."^'^ 

By  this  time  we  trust  the  reader  is  satisfied  that 
Timothy  was  not  Bishop  of  Ephesus ;  and,  as  it 
is  agreed  that  his  functions  and  those  of  Titus 
were  alike,  the  conclusion  is,  that  the  latter  was 
not  Bishop  of  Crete.  What  were  they  then  }  We 
ans^ver,  they  were  extraordinary  officers^  knoicn  in 
the  J]postolic  church  by  the  name  of  evangelists  ; 
and  employed  as  travelling  companions  and  assistants 
of  the  J^postles^  in  propagatiiig  the  gospel. 

For  this  purpose  their  powers,  like  those  of  the 
Apostles,  were  extraordinary ;  their  office  too  was 
temporary ;  and  therefore  their  superiority  over 
Presbyters  is  no  precedent  nor  warrant  for  retain- 
ing such  superiority  in  the  permanent  order  of  the 

*  Jus  divinum  ministeru  Anglicani.  p.  65,  66  4to.  1654. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  -      201 

church.  That  such  was  the  nature  of  the  office 
of  an  evangehst,  we  have  testimony  which  our 
Episcopal  brethren  will  not  dispute — the  testimo- 
ny of  bishop  Eusebius. 

This  celebrated  historian  tells  us,  that  even  in 
the  second  century  there  were  disciples  of  the 
apostles,  "  who  every  where  built  upon  the  foun- 
dations which  the  apostles  had  laid :  preaching 
the  gospel,  and  scattering  the  salutary  seeds  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  over  the  face  of  the  earth. 
And,  moreover,  very  many  of  the  disciples  of  that 
day  travelled  abroad,  and  performed  the  work  of 
EVANGELISTS ;  ardcutly  ambitious  of  preaching 
Christ  to  those  who  were  yet  wholly  unacquainted 
with  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  to  deliver  to  them 
the  scripture  of  the  divine  gospels.  These^  having 
merely  laid  the  foundations  of  the  faith^  and  ordained 
OTHER  PASTORS,  Committed  to  them  the  cultivation  of 
the  churches  newly  planted ;  while  they  theinselves^  sup- 
ported by  the  grace  and  co-operation  of  God^  proceeded 

to    OTHER    COUNTRIES  AND  NATIONS.       For    eVCn  thcn^ 

many  astonishing  miracles  of  the  divine  spirit  were 
wrought  by  them."* 

Eusebius  has  used  the  very  expression  of  Paul 
to  Timothy,  viz.  the  work  of  an  evangelist ;  and  if 
the  reader  compare  his  description  of  that  work 
with  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  with 
their  history  as  it  may  be  gathered  from  the  New 
Testament,  he  will  perceive  the  most  exact  ac- 

•EusEBii,  His.  Eccles.  Lib.  iii.  c.  37.  ed.  Reading,  T.  i.  p.  133. 
Vol.  III.  26 


202  Review. 

cordance.  That  is,  he  will  perceive  the  work  of 
an  evangelist,  like  the  work  of  an  apostle,  to  have 
been  altogether  extraordinary  and  temporary. 

Paul  took  up  Timothy  at  Lystra,*  according  to 
the  chronology  of  our  bibles,  in  the  year  of  Christ, 
52.  He  accompanied  the  apostle  in  his  travels; 
for  at  the  close  of  the  next  year,  53,  he  was  with 
him  at  Berea,  and  staid  there  when  Paul  was  sent 
away  by  the  brethren.t  By  the  persons  who  con- 
ducted Paul  he  received  a  message  to  come  to 
him  at  Athens;  but  did  not  join  him,  as  appears, 
till  he  was  at  Corinth,!  the  year  after,  54.  The 
next  two  years  he  made  a  part  of  the  apostle's 
retinue;  was  with  him  when  he  wrote  both  his 
Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians;||  and,  at  the  close 
of  that  period,  was  sent,  with  Erastus,  into  Mace- 
donia, anno  56.§  Three  years  after  he  was  de- 
spatched to  Corinth  :1]  and  the  next,  anno  60,  had 
returned,  and  was  with  Paul  when  he  wrote  his 
second  Epistle  to  the  church  in  that  city.**  He 
was  one  of  the  seven  distinguished  personages 
who  composed  the  apostle's  train  that  same  year, 
when  he  left  Greece  and  went  into  Asia. 

It  was  in  this  very  journey  that  Paul  sent  for 
the  elders  of  Ephesus  to  Miletum,  and  laid  upon 
them  that  solemn  charge  to  feed  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers.tt 

*  Act.  xvi.  1 — \.  f  xvii.  14. 

X  Act.  xviii.  5.  ||  1  Thess.  i.  1.  2  Thess.  i.  1. 

§  Act.  xix.  1. 10.  22.  II  1  Cor.  iv.  17. 

•*  2  Cor.  i.  1.  ft  XX.  28. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  203 

Timothy  was  there,*  and  if  Bishop  of  Ephesus 
at  all,  must  have  been  appointed  either  then  or 
before.  For  as  Paul  never  saw  the  Ephesian 
brethren  afterwards.f  he  never  had  afterwards 
an  opportunity  of  ordaining  a  Bishop  over  them. 
If  Timothy  were  their  diocesan  already,  he  had 
been  very  Httle  with  them,  as  the  narrative  evinces. 
And  is  it  not  strange  that  the  whole  of  the  apostle's 
charge  should  be  addressed  to  the  Presbyters, 
and  not  a  syllable  to  their  Bishop,  nor  to  them  on 
their  duty  to  him  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  was 
then  ordained  to  his  see,  is  not  the  silence  of  Paul 
on  the  subject  of  their  mutual  duties  equally  mys- 
terious }  That  he  should  address  them  as  having 
the  oversight  of  the  flock ;  when  the  fact  was  that  it 
belonged  not  to  them  but  to  Timothy,  and  should 
do  this  to  their  Bishop's  face  without  recognizing 
his  pre-eminence  in  the  most  distant  manner  } 

They  who  can  swallow  all  this,  when  they  are 
boasting  of  the  scriptural  evidence  that  Timothy 
was  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  have  a  most  happy  knack 
at  self-persuasion  !  We  own  that  our  credulity 
does  not  contain  a  passage  for  so  large  a  camel ! 

But  let  us  see  what  becomes  of  Timothy.  Whe- 
ther he  constantly  attached  himself  afterwards  to 
the  person  of  Paul  we  know  not;  but  we  do  know 
that  he  was  with  him  when  a  prisoner  at  Rome, 
anno  64,  and  shared  in  his  bonds.J 

Let  any  sober  man  look  at  this  itinerant  life  of 

•  2  Cor.  V.  5.  13.  f  V.  25.  38.  %  Heb.  xiii.  23. 


204  R 


evteiv. 


Timothy,  and  ask  whether  his  occupations  resem 
bled  those  of  a  diocesan  Bishop  ?  Whether  there 
is  even  the  shadow  of  a  presumption  that  he  had 
a  fixed  charge  ?  And  whether  there  is  not  just  as 
good  evidence  of  his  being  Bishop  of  Berea,  of 
Corinth,  or  of  Thessalonica,  as  ofEphesus? 

Titus  is  in  the  same  situation.  In  the  first 
chapter  of  Paul's  epistle  to  him,  the  object  of  his 
stay  at  Crete  is  specified.  The  last  chapter  de- 
clares it  to  have  been  temporary ;  for  Paul  men- 
tions his  design  of  sending  another  to  take  his 
place  ;  directs  him  to  come  without  delay  to  him 
at  Nicopohs  ;  and  to  bring  with  him  Zenas  and 
Apollos.*  Whence,  by  the  way,  it  is  clear  that 
Titus  had  coadjutors  in  Crete.  For  ApoUos  was 
an  eloquent  preacher  of  the  gospel ;  and  in  esti- 
mation near  the  apostles  themselves.t 

On  this  point,  the  Inquirer,  in  the  collection 
under  review,  p.  132,  had  asked, 

*'  Since  Paul  sent  for  Titus,  after  he  had  "  set  in  order  the 
things  that  were  wanting,"  to  come  to  Nicopolis,  took  him 
along  with  him  to  Rome,  and  then  sent  him  into  Dalmatia, 
may  not  Titus  be  properly  called  an  Evangelist;  or  airavel' 
ling  rather  than  a  diocesan  Bishop  1" 

A  very  reasonable  and  modest  question,  one 
would  think.  But  Dr.  Hobart,  in  his  note,  calls  upon 
Bishop  Hoadley  to  shut  the  mouth  of  the  Inquirer. 

"  Let  Bishop  Hoadley  answer  this  inquiry,  and  silence  the 
only  objection  which  the  anti-Episcopalians  can  bring  against 
the  evident  superiority  of  Timothy  and  Titus  over  the  other 
•  Tit.  ui.  12,  13.  f  1  Cor.  i.  12.  il.  6. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  205 

orders  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  that  they  were  extraordinary  of- 
ficers, Evangelists,  travelling  Bishops.  '  It  is  of  small  impor- 
tance whether  Timothi/  und  Titus  were  fixed  Bishops,  properly 
so  called  or  not.  Perhaps  at  the  first  plantation  of  churches 
there  was  no  such  necessity  o^  fired  Bishops  as  was  found  af- 
terwards ;  or  perhaps  at  first  the  superintendency  of  such  per- 
sons as  Timothi/  and  Titus  was  thought  requisite  in  many  dif- 
ferent churches,  as  their  several  needs  required.  If  so,  their 
office  certainly  was  the  same  in  all  churches  to  which  they 
went ;  and  ordination  a  work  reserved  to  such  as  they  were, 
persons  superior  to  the  settled  Presbyters.  But  as  to  Ephe- 
sus and  Crete,  it  is  manifest  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  to 
stay  with  the  churches  there,  as  long  as  their  presence  was  not 
more  wanted  at  other  places:  And,  besides,  if  they  did  leave 
these  churches,  there  was  as  good  reason  that  they  should  re- 
turn to  them  to  perform  the  same  office  of  ordination  when 
there  was  again  occasion,  as  there  was  at  first,  why  they  should 
be  sent  by  St.  Paul  to  that  purpose.  Nor  is  there  the  least 
footstep  in  all  antiquity,  as  far  as  it  hath  yet  appeared,  of  any 
attempt  in  the  Presbyters  oi Ephesus  or  Crete,  to  take  to  them- 
selves the  offices  appropriated  in  the  forementioned  Epistles,  to 
a  superior  order  of  men.'  Hoadley''s  Def.  of  Episc.  ch.  i.— jEc?." 

The  anti-Episcopalians  do  not,  so  far  as  we  un- 
derstand them,  deny  the  "  superiority  of  Timothy 
and  Titus  over  the  other  orders  at  Ephesus  and 
Crete."  But  they  deny  the  inferences  which  the 
jure  clivinq  prelatists  draw  from  that  superiority, 
viz.  1.  therefore^  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus, 
and  Titus  of  Crete;  and  2.  therefore  Diocesan 
Episcopacy  is  of  apostolic  institution.  These 
things  they  deny.  They  contend  that  a  ministry 
extraordinary  and  temporary  cannot  be  a  rule  for 
a  ministry  which  is  ordinary  and  permanent — that 


206  Review 

functions  which,  like  those  of  the  apostles  and 
evangelists,  admitted  of  no  fixed  charges,  cannot 
be  a  model  for  a  sytem  of  fixed  charges,  as  dio- 
cesan Episcopacy  undoubtedly  is — that  the  me- 
thod pursued  m  founding  churches  is  no  precedent 
for  governing  them  when  fomided.  It  would  be,  in 
their  estimation,  quite  as  fair  and  as  reasonable, 
to  infer  the  form  of  government  prescribed  for  a 
conquered  country,  from  the  measures  adopted  by 
the  invaders  for  effecting  and  completing  the  con- 
quest. Or  to  deduce  the  powers  and  jurisdiction 
of  the  different  departments  in  a  civil  constitution, 
from  the  powers  of  those  who  set  it  up.  This 
would  be  most  fallacious  reasoning;  and  the 
whole  world  would  agree  in  rejecting  it  as  not 
only  false  but  extremely  dangerous.  Yet  it  is  pre- 
cisely the  fallacy  of  the  Episcopal  reasoning  from 
the  powers  of  Timothy  and  Titus  to  those  of  or- 
dinary rulers  in  the  church.  No.  When  we  in- 
quire who  are  the  fixed  officers,  and  what  is  the 
fixed  order  of  the  church  ?  we  must  inquire,  not 
what  apostles  and  evangelists  did  in  executing 
their  peculiar  trust ;  but  what  officers  and  order 
they  fixed  in  the  churches  planted  by  their  care.  This, 
and  this  alone,  can  be  our  pattern.  In  the  history 
of  their  proceedings  we  have  the  most  incontes- 
table evidence  of  their  ordaining  Presbyters  in 
fixed  charges.  But  we  challenge  all  the  advocates 
for  Episcopacy  to  produce  a  ^m^/^  example  of  their 
assigning  a  fixed  charge  to  any  officer  above  a 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  207 

Presbyter;  or  of  their  exercising,  without  imme- 
diate inspiration  in  any  settled  church,  a  singh  act 
of  power  ivhich  they  refused  to  Presbyters,  When 
Hoadley  tells  us  that  fixed  charges  might  not  be 
so  necessary  in  those  days  as  afterwards,  he  con- 
fesses his  inability  to  prove  either  that  Timothy 
and  Titus  were  diocesan  bishops ;  or  that  dioce- 
san Episcopacy  has  an  apostolic  sanction.  For 
if  it  were  not,  as  a  system  of  fixed  charges,  ne- 
cessary then^  the  apostles  did  not  then  establish  it. 
If  they  did  not  then  establish  it,  they  never  esta- 
blished it  at  all ;  for  it  cannot  be  pretended  that 
they  left  instructions  for  its  introduction  after- 
wards. And  if  it  was  not  then  instituted,  we  reject 
its  claim;  if  not  then  necessary,  we  must  have 
better  authority  than  the  prelates  themselves  to 
satisfy  us  that  it  has  been  necessary  at  any  period 
since.  Hoadley,  therefore,  with  his  ifs  and  per- 
haps^ instead  of  silencing  our  objection,  has  con- 
firmed it.  We  drove  the  nail,  and  my  lord  of  Win- 
chester has  most  obligingly  clenched  it.  Dr.  Ho- 
bart  has  our  permission  to  draw  it  at  his  leisure. 

We  finish  this  scrptural  view  with  observing,  that 
whatever  may  be  the  difficulty  of  Dr.  Bowden,  ive 
can  see  prelates  in  England  without  going  to 
Ephesus  or  Crete  for  spectacles  :  and  that  if  no 
more  of  prelacy  had  prevailed  in  the  one,  than 
the  scriptures  show  to  have  existed  in  tte  other, 
it  had  been  infinitely  better,  at  this  day,  for  the 
jnost  precious  interests  of  Old  England. 


208  R 


evtew. 


In  an  early  stage  of  this  review,  we  joined  issue 
with  our  Episcopal  brethren  upon  a  proposition  of 
the  Layman,  viz.  "  The  question  of  Episcopacy 
is  a  question  of  fact,  to  be  determined  by  a  sound 
interpretation  of  the  sacred  volume."  We  not 
only  consented,  but  insisted,  that  the  question 
should  be  decided  by  the  scripture  alone.*  We 
closed  the  scriptural  argument  in  our  last  number, 
and  therefore,  have  closed  the  argument  upon  the 
merits  of  the  case.  God's  own  word  must  contain 
the  law  of  his  own  house.  The  idea  cannot  be 
admitted  for  a  single  moment,  that  those  master- 
principles,  without  which  there  could  be  no  Chris- 
tian order,  nor  any  system  of  instituted  worship, 
are  left  unsettled  in  the  rule  of  faith.  Whatever 
is  to  govern  our  consciences  must  have  its  foun- 
dation here,  and  a  foundation  deep  and  strong. 
We  think  we  have  demonstrated  that  the  Epis- 
copal claim  has  no  such  foundation.  Who  set  up 
the  hierarchy,  is  a  question  not  worth  the  expense 
of  a  thought,  seeing  God  has  not  appointed  it  in 
his  word.  W^hen  we  follow  its  advocates  to  the 
ground  of  ecclesiastical  history,  we  yield  them  a 
courtesy  which  they  have  no  right  to  expect. 
The  instant  we  cross  the  line  of  inspiration,  we 
are  out  of  the  territory  where  the  only  rightful 
tribunal  is  erected,  and  where  alone  we  shall  per- 
mit ourselves  to  be  tried. 

However,  as  the  argument  which  prelacy  de- 

*  See  page  39. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  209 

rires  from  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  is  in  truth 
her  best  argument ;  let  us  pay  it  the  compUment 
of  an  examination.  Thus  she  states  it  from  the 
mouth  of  a  bishop  : 

"  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  primitive  Fathers 
of  tlie  church  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the  mode 
of  ecclesiastical  government  established  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles  ?  Now,  their  testimony  is  universalis/  in  our  favour. 
What  course,  tlien,  have  the  enemies  of  Episcopacy  for  the 
most  part  pursued  ?  Why,  they  have  endeavoured  by  every 
art  of  misrepresentation  to  invalidate  this  testimony  of  the 
Fathers.  Ignatius  was  born  before  the  death  of  St.  John. 
Seven  of  his  Epistles  have  been  proved  by  Bishop  Pearson  to 
be  genuine,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  whole  learned  world.  In 
these  Epistles  he  repeatedly  mentions  the  three  orders  of  Bi- 
shops, Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  and  speaks  of  the  order  of 
Bishops  as  necessary  in  the  constitution  of  every  Christian 
church.  All  this  has  been  done ;  and  still,  the  Presbyterian 
teachers  mislead  the  people,  by  artfully  insinuating  that  none 
of  the  writings  are  genuine  which  go  under  the  name  of  Ig- 
natius. Another  artful  method  pursued  by  our  opponejits  is 
to  collect  all  the  errors  into  which  tlie  Fathers  have  fallen, 
with  respect  to  particular  points  of  doctrine  ;  to  paint  these 
errors  in  the  blackest  colours  ;  and  when  they  have  thus  pre- 
judiced the  minds  of  the  people  against  them,  boldly  tc  go  mi 
to  the  preposterous  conclusion,  that  tlie  testimony  of  these 
Fathers  is  not  to  be  regarded  when  they  stand  forth  as  wit- 
nesses to  a  matter  of  fact.  But  is  this  fair  dealing?  May  not 
a  man  of  sincerity  and  truth  be  liable  to  errors,  as  to  matters 
of  opinion  ;  and  still  be  a  true  witness,  as  to  things  which  he 
has  seen  ajid  heard  1 

'*  Pursuing  the  usual  mode  of  artful  misrepresentation ,  our 
Miscellanist  has  endeavoured  to  represent  Jerome  as  favouring 
the  Presbyterian  scheme  of  church  government ;  and  with  the 

Vol.  III.  27 


210  Review. 

same  spirit,  he  abuses  the  church  of  England  as  too  nearly 
bordering  on  Popery.  After  seeing  what  has  been  published 
on  these  subjects,  if  your  opponent  has  any  spark  of  modesty 
remaining  in  his  bosom,  he  will  never  produce  the  testimony 
of  Jerome  in  support  of  his  cause."* 

Thus,  from  the  mouth  of  a  priest : 

"  Here  let  me  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  every  unpre- 
judiced reader,  to  bear  witness  to«the  truth  of  the  following 
proposition. 

"  If  we  had  only  obscure  hints  given  us  in  scripture  of  the 
institution  of  this  form  of  government  by  the  Apostles,  and  if 
at  a  very  early  period — as  soon  as  any  distinct  mention  is  at  all 
made  of  the  subject,  this  appears  to  be  the  only  form  of  govern- 
ment existing  in  the  church,  have  we  not  the  strongest  possible 
presumption,  have  we  not  absolute  demonstration,  that  it  was 
of  Apostolic  original  1  Who  were  so  likely  to  be  acquainted 
with  the  intentions,  with  the  practices,  with  the  institutions  of 
the  Apostles,  as  their  immediate  successors  ?  If,  then,  we  should 
admit  for  a  moment,  (and  really  it  is  almost  too  great  an  out- 
rage against  sound  reasoning,  to  be  admitted  even  for  a  mo- 
ment ;)  I  say,  if  we  should  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  "  the  Classical  or  Presbyterial  form  of  church  government 
was  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  at  what  period  was 
the  Episcopal  introduced  1  When  did  this  monstous  innova- 
tion upon  primitive  order  find  its  way  into  the  church  of  Christ? 
At  what  period  did  the  Bishops  make  the  bold  and  successful 
attempt  of  exalting  themselves  into  "  lords  in  God's  heritage." 
These  are  questions  which  the  advocates  of  parity  have  never 
yet  been  able  to  answer,  which  they  never  will  be  able  to  an- 
swer. They  tell  us,  indeed,  of  a  change  that  must  have  taken 
place  at  an  early  period,  that  Episcopacy  is  a  corrupt  inno- 
vation ;  but  they  can  produce  no  proof  on  which  to  ground 
these  bold  assertions.     They  are  countenanced,  in  these  as- 

f  Cornelius,  Collec.  p.  135. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  2 11 

sertions,  by  none  of  the  records  of  these  times  tliat  have  been 
transmitted  to  us.  It  is  a  mere  conjecture,  a  creature  of  the 
imagination.  It  is  conjectured  that  this  change  took  pkice 
immediately  after  the  Apostolic  age.  It  must  be  that  this 
change  took  place,  or  Presbyterian  principles  cannot  be 
maintained.  Thus  a  mere  conjecture  on  their  part  is  to  over- 
balance the  most  solid  and  substantial  proofs  on  ours.  In  order 
to  follow  these  aerial  adventurers  in  their  excursions,  we  are  to 
desert  the  broad  and  solid  bottom  of  facts,  and  launch  into  the 
regions  of  hypothesis  and  uncertainty. 

*'  We  say,  then,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  well  remembered,  that 
from  the  earliest  information  which  is  given  us  concerning  the 
institutions  and  usages  of  the  Christian  church,  it  undeniably 
appears,  that  there  existed  in  it  the  three  distinct  orders  of  Bi- 
shops, Presbyters,  and  Deacons.  We  say,  that  this  circum- 
stance amounts  to  demonstrative  evidence,  that  these  three 
orders  were  of  divine  institution — were  of  Apostolic  appoint- 
ment."— "  But  we  do  not  stop  here.  We  maintain  that  to 
suppose  the  form  of  government  in  the  church  of  Christ  to 
have  been  so  fundamentally  altered  at  this  time,  is  the  wildest 
imagination  that  ever  entered  into  the  head  of  man.  Let  us 
contemplate  the  circumstances  of  this  case. 

"  It  is  supposed  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  instituted 
originally  but  one  order  of  ministers  in  his  church,  equal  in 
dignity  and  authority.  It  is  imagined^  that  immediately  after 
their  death,  a  number  of  aspiring  individuals  abolished  this 
primitive  arrangement,  elevated  themselves  to  supreme  autho- 
rity in  the  church  of  Christ.  Concerning  the  time  at  which 
this  innovation  was  effected,  the  advocates  of  Presbyterianism 
are  by  no  means  agreed.  The  most  learned  among  them» 
however,  admit  that  it  must  have  taken  place  before  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century,  about /or^y  or  fifty  years  after  the 
times  of  the  Apostles.  Blondel  allows  that  Episcopacy  was 
the  established  government  of  the  church  within  forty  years 
after  the  Apostolic  age.     Bocuart  assigns  as  the  period  of  its 


212  Review, 

origin,  the  age  that  immediately  succeeded  the  Apostles.  He 
says  it  arose,  paulo  post  Apostolos.  Salmasius  even  allows 
that  this  government  prevailed  in  the  church  before  the  death 
of  the  last  of  the  Apostles.  And,  in  fact,  this  is  the  only 
period  at  which  it  can  be  supposed  to  have  originated  with 
any  degree  of  plausibility.  It  shall  be  my  task  to  show  that 
it  IS  altogether  hnprobable,  that  it  is  almost  impossible,  that 
any  innovation  upon  primitive  order  and  discipline  could  have 
been  effectuated  at  this  early  period. 

"  Within  forty  years  after  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  we  are 
told,  that  the  Bishops,  by  a  bold  and  successful  effort,  tram- 
pled upon  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Clergy,  and  elevated 
themselves  to  the  chair  of  supreme  authority  !  What !  Those 
who  were  the  immediate  successors  of  the  Apostles — those 
who  had  received  from  these  miraculous  men  the  words  of 
eternal  truth,  the  institutions  of  God's  own  appointment — so 
soon  forget  the  reverence  and  duty  which  they  owed  them — 
so  soon,  with  a  rash  and  impious  hand,  strike  away  the  founr 
dation  of  those  venerable  structures  which  they  had  erected  ! 
Would  they  not  permit  the  Apostles  to  be  cold  in  their  graves 
before  they  began  to  undermine  and  demolish  their  sacred 
establishments'?  Would  such  iniquitous  proceedings  have  been 
possible  with  men  who  exhibited,  on  all  occasions,  the  Avann- 
est  attachment  to  their  Saviour,  and  to  all  his  institutions'? 
Will  it  be  imagined  that  the  good  Ignatius,  the  venerable 
Bishop  of  Aritioch,  he  wlio  triumphantly  avowed  that  he  dis- 
regarded the  pains  of  martyrdom,  so  that  he  could  but  attain 
to  the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ — will  it  be  imagined  that  he 
entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow  that  government  which 
his  Saviour  had  established  in  his  churcli?  Would  the  illus- 
trious PoLYCARP,  the  pride  and  ornament  of  the  churches  of 
Asia,  have  engaged  iu  the  execution  of  so  foul  an  enterprise — 
he,  who,  when  commanded  to  blaspheme  Christ,  exclaimed, 
"  Four-score  and  six  years  have  I  served  him,  and  he  never 
did  me  any  harm  ;  how,  then,  shall  I  blaspheme  my  King 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  213 

and  my  Saviour  1"  In  short,  can  all  the  pious  Fathers  that 
succeeded  these,  be  supposed  to  have  co-operated  in  perfect- 
ing the  atrocious  work  which  they  had  begun  1  These  things 
will  not  be  credited. 

"  But  even  supposing  that  these  pious  men,  whose  meek 
and  unaspiring  temper  renders  it  altogether  incredible  that 
they  made  any  such  sacrilegious  attempt,  were  inclined  to 
obtain  this  pre-eminence  in  the  church  ;  can  it  be  imagined, 
that  the  remaining  Presbyters  would  have  ivitnessed  these 
daring  usurpations  with  indifference  1  Would  they  have  made 
no  effort  to  save  themselves  and  their  brethren  from  the  con- 
trol of  so  undue  and  illegitimate  an  authority  ?  Could  none 
be  found  amongst  them  possessed  of  so  much  zeal  in  the  ser- 
vice of  their  divine  master,  so  ardently  attached  to  his  holy 
institutions,  as  to  induce  them  to  resist  such  a  bold  and  im- 
pious attempt  ?  In  short,  woidd  not  such  an  attempt  by  a  few 
Presbyters,  according  to  the  uniform  course  of  things,  neces- 
sarily have  agitated  and  convulsed  the  church?  Would  not  the 
period  of  such  an  innovation  have  become  a  marked  and  pe- 
culiar era  in  her  existence  1  Can  the  advocates  of  parity  show 
any  thing  in  the  history  of  man  analagous  to  their  supposed 
change  in  ecclesiastical  government  at  this  time?  Could  ever 
such  a  radical  and  important  alteration  have  been  produced  in 
any  government,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  without  being  accom- 
panied by  violence  and  convulsion  1  We  find  that  the  congre- 
gations, at  this  time,  were  extremely  jealous  of  the  authority 
that  was  exercised  over  them.  This  jealousy  made  its  appear- 
ance even  during  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  Some  took  it 
upon  themselves  to  call  in  question  the  authority  of  St.  Paul, 
others  that  of  St.  John.  From  the  Epistle  of  Clemens  to  the 
Corinthians,  it  would  seem  as  if  some  disorders  had  arisen 
amongst  them  from  a  similar  source.  Is  it  to  be  supposed 
then  that  any  number  of  Presbyters  would  have  dared,  would 
have  proved  successful  had  they  dared,  to  endeavour  to  accu- 
mulate in  their  hands  such  undue  authority  as  that  which  w 


214  Review. 

claimed  by  Bishops  1  And  even  if  we  should  allow  that  a 
few  Presbyters  might  in  some  places  have  had  the  talents  and 
address  to  elevate  themselves  to  this  superiority  over  their 
brethren,  is  it  probable,  is  it  possible,  that  this  took  place  at 
the  same  time  over  the  universal  church  1  Can  such  a  singular 
coincidence  of  circumstances  be  reasonably  imagined  ?  The 
church  had,  at  this  time,  widely  extended  herself  over  the  Ro- 
man empire.  Did,  then,  the  churches  of  Africa,  of  Asia,  of 
Europe,  by  a  miraculous  unanimity  of  opinion,  enter  at  the 
same  moment  into  the  determination  to  change  their  form  of 
government  from  the  Presbyterial  to  the  Episcopal  ?  I  will 
not  do  so  much  discredit  to  the  understanding  of  any  reader 
as  to  imagine  that  he  does  not  at  once  perceive  the  inadmis- 
sibility and  the  absurdity  of  such  a  supposition. 

"  Let  us,  however,  suppose  the  most  that  our  adversaries 
can  desire.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  primitive  rulers  of  the 
church  were  destitute  of  principle.  Let  us  suppose  them  de- 
void of  attachment  to  the  institutions  of  Christ.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  they  waited  every  opportunity  to  promote  their  own 
aggrandizement.  Let  us  suppose  the  difficulties  removed  that 
opposed  them  in  their  ascent  towards  the  chair  of  Episcopal 
authority.  What  was  there,  at  this  period,  in  the  office  of 
Bishop  to  excite  their  desires,  or  to  invite  their  exertions  to 
obtain  it?  The  veneration  attached  to  it,  as  yet,  extended  no 
farther  than  to  tlie  family  of  the  faithful.  The  church  was 
on  all  hands  encountered  by  the  bitterest  enemies.  By  ele- 
vating themselves,  therefore,  to  the  pre-eminence  of  Bishops, 
they  only  raised  themselves  to  pre-eminence  in  difficulties,  in 
dangers,  in  deaths.  Their  blood  was  always  the  first  that  was' 
drunk  by  the  sword  of  persecution.  Their  station  only  ex- 
posed them  to  more  certain  and  more  horrid  deaths.  AVas 
an  office  of  this  kind  an  object  of  cupidity  1  Is  it  to  be  sup- 
posed that  great  exertions  would  be  made,  many  difficulties 
encountered,  to  obtain  it?  But  I  need  say  no  more  on  this 
part  of  the  subject. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  215 

"  The  idea  that  an  alteration  took  place  at  this  time  in  the 
form  of  government  originally  established  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  is  altogether  unsupported  by  any  proof. 

"  It  is  proved  to  be  unfounded  by  unnumbered  considera- 
tions."* 

After  hearing  the  bishop  and  the  priest,  let  us 
hear  also  the  Layman : 

*'  Calvin  found  the  whole  Christian  world  in  possession  of 
the  Episcopal  form  of  government.  The  most  learned  sup- 
porters of  the  opposite  doctrine  scruple  not  to  admit  that 
Bishops  existed,  universally,  in  the  church,  as  distinct  from, 
and  superior  to,  Presbyters,  within  forty  or  fifty  years  after 
the  last  of  the  Apostles.  Such  is  the  concession  of  Blondd^ 
of  Salmasius,  of  Bochartus^  of  Baxter^  of  Doddridge.  Some 
of  them,  indeed,  carry  it  up  to  a  much  earlier  period  ;  Salraa- 
sius  going  so  far  as  to  admit  that  Episcopacy  prevailed  shortly 
after  the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter,  and  long  before  the 
death  of  St.  John. 

*'  It  is  surely  incumbent  on  those  who  advocate  a  form  of 
government  admitted  to  be  thus  new^  and  thus  opposed  to  the 
early ^  universal^  and  uninterrupted  practice  of  the  cliurch,  to 
give  us  the  most  convincing  and  unequivocal  proof  of  the  di- 
vinity of  their  system.  More  especially  when  it  is  recollected 
that  they  can  produce  no  record  of  a  change  ;  but  are  obliged 
to  imagine  one,  in  opposition  to  the  uniform  testhnony  of  the 
primitive  fathers  of  t!ie  church.  The  age  in  which  they  sup- 
pose a  change  to  have  taken  place  was  a  learned  age,  abound- 
ing in  authors  of  the  first  eminence.  The  most  minute  events 
are  recorded,  and  yet  not  a  word  is  said  of  the  revolution, 
which  some  men  talk  of,  so  fundamental  in  its  nature,  and  so 
interesting  in  its  consequences.  The  change,  too,  which  they 
imagine,  must  have  been  both  instantaneous  and  universal; 
and  this  at  a  time  when  there  were  no  Christian  princes  to 

*  Cyprian,  No.  V.  Colhc.  p.  144—147. 


21 6  Review. 

promote  it ;  when  no  general  council  had  met,  or  could  meet 
to  establish  it ;  and  when  the  fury  of  persecution  cut  off  all 
intercourse  between  distant  churches ;  leaving  their  Clergy, 
also,  something  else  to  attend  to  than  projects  of  usurpation. 
Such  are  the  strange  and  almost  incredible  absurdities  into 
which  men  will  run,  rather  than  give  up  a  system  to  which 
they  have  become  wedded  by  educaton  and  by  habit."* 

The  sum  of  the  foregoing  argument  is  this  : 

'•Immediately  after  the  death  of  the  apostles, 
the  whole  Christian  ivorld  was  Episcopal,  and  re- 
mained so,  without  interruption,  or  question,  for 
fifteen  hundred  years — that  no  cause  short  of 
Apostolic  institution,  can,  with  any  show  of  rea- 
son, be  assigned  for  such  an  effect — that  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose  a  sudden,  universal,  and  suc- 
cessful conspiracy,  to  change  the  primitive  order 
of  the  church — and  therefore,  that  Episcopacy  is, 
at  least,  of  apostolic  origin." 

Contracted  into  a  more  regular  form,  the  argu- 
ment stands  thus  : 

That  order  which  the  church  universal  possess- 
ed at,  or  shortly  after,  the  death  of  the  apostles,  is 
the  order  which  they  established  and  left : 

But  the  order  of  the  church  universal,  at,  or 
shortly  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  was  Epis- 
copal : 

Therefore,  Episcopacy  is  the  order  estabhshed 
by  the  Apostles. 

This  reasoning  appears,  at  first  sight,  to  be  con- 
clusive.    It  certainly  ought  to  be  so,  considering 

*  Layman,  No.  VII.  Colkc.  p.  99. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  217 

the  interests  which  depend  upon  it,  and  the 
triumph  with  which  it  is  brought  forward.  Never- 
theless, we  more  than  suspect  a  fallacy  in  the  rea- 
soning itself,  and  an  errour  ni  the  assumption 
upon  which  it  confessedly  relies. 

Supposing  the  fact  to  have  been,  as  our  Epis- 
copal friends  say  it  was,  viz.  that  the  accounts  of 
the  state  of  the  Christian  church  after  the  death  of 
the  apostles,  represent  her,  without  an  exception, 
as  under  Episcopal  organization,  we  should  still 
impeach  the  conclusion  that  Episcopacy  was  esta- 
blished by  the  apostles.  We  acknowledge,  that, 
upon  our  principles,  the  phenomenon  would  be  ex- 
traordinary, and  the  difficulty  great  So  great,  that 
did  there  exist  no  other  records  of  the  first  con- 
stitution of  the  church,  than  the  testimony  of  the 
primitive  fathers  ;  and  did  this  testimony  declare 
her  to  have  been  Episcopal,  as  that  term  is  now 
understood,  there  could  be,  in  our  apprehension, 
no  dispute  about  the  matter.  Common  sense 
would  instruct  us  to  decide  according  to  the  best 
evidence  we  could  get:  that  evidence  would  be 
altogether  in  favour  of  the  Episcopal  claim,  which, 
therefore,  no  man  in  his  senses,  would  think  of 
disputing.  We  say,  such  would  be  the  result  weix 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers  correctly  stated  by  the 
hierarchy ;  and  had  we  no  other  documents  or  records 
to  consult.  But  we  have  other  and  better  testi- 
mony than  that  of  the  Fathers.  We  have  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Apostles  themselves :  We  have 
Vol.  ill.  28 


218  Review* 

their  own  authentic  records :  We  have  the  very 
instrument  in  which  the  ascended  Head  of  the 
church  has  written  her  whole  charter  with  the  finger 
of  his  unerring  Spirit :  We  have  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  charter  we  have  examined.  We 
have  minutely  discussed  the  parts  upon  which  our 
opponents  rely:  we  have  compared  them  with 
other  parts  of  the  same  instrument,  and  we  have 
proved  that  Episcopacy  is  not  there.  Admitting 
then,  what,  however,  we  do  not  admit,  that  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers  to  Episcopacy  is  precise 
and  full,  it  would  be  nothing  to  us.  They  must 
testify  one  of  two  things ;  either  that  the  plan  of 
the  hierarchy  is  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament ; 
or  simply  that  it  existed  in  their  days.  The  for- 
mer would  refer  to  the  written  w^ord  which  we  can 
understand  as  well  as  themselves,  if  not  much 
better ;  so  that  we  should  not  take  their  assertion 
for  our  interpretation.  The  latter  could  only  lur- 
nish  us  with  a  subject  worthy  of  investigation ;  but 
could  not  be  a  sohd  foundation  for  so  splendid 
and  ponderous  a  superstructure  as  the  Episcopal 
hierarchy.  Were  the  language  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament ambiguous  throughout :  did  it  contain  no 
internal  principles  of  satisfactory  exposition :  were 
it,  (which  would  render  it  a  miraculous  equivoque,) 
were  it  equally  adapted  to  an  Episcopal,  or  an 
Anti-episcopal,  order ;  in  this  event,  too,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers  would  turn  the  balance.  But 
as  neither  its  language  nor  its  facts  can  be  made, 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  219 

without  negligence  or  violence,  to  accord  with  the 
institutions  of  the  hierarchy,  she  is  not  at  hberty 
to  set  off  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  against  that 
of  the  scripture ;  and  to  iiifer  that  she  is  of  apos- 
tolical extraction,  merely  because  she  was  found 
in  being  after  her  pretended  spiritual  progenitors 
were  dead.  It  never  can  be  tolerated  as  sound 
reasoning  to  determine  the  meaning  of  a  law  from 
certain  observances  which  are  to  be  tried  by  the 
law  itself;  and,  by  inference  from  extraneous  facts  ^ 
to  establish,  as  law,  a  point  v^hich  the  law  does 
not  acknowledge.  A  question  is  at  issue,  whether 
Episcopacy  is  of  apostolic  authority  or  not.  The 
law  of  God's  house,  penned  by  the  apostles  them- 
selves, is  produced ;  and  the  verdict,  upon  trial, 
is  for  the  negative.  The  Episcopal  counsel  ap- 
peals to  the  Fathers ;  they  depose,  he  says,  that 
Episcopacy  was  in  actual  existence,  throughout 
the  Christian  community,  a  little  while  after  the 
death  of  the  Apostles ;  and  he  insists  that  this  fact 
shall  regulate  the  construction  of  the  Christian  law. 
"  By  no  means ;"  replies  the  counsel  on  fhe 
other  side.  "  We  accuse  Episcopacy  of  corrupting 
the  Christian  institutions ;  and  her  counsel  pleads 
the  early  existence  of  her  alleged  crime,  as  a  proof 
of  her  having  conformed  to  the  will  of  the  Law- 
giver ;  and  that  the  fact  of  her  having  committed 
it  from  nearly  the  time  of  promulging  the  law,  is 
a  demonstration  that  the  law  not  only  allows  but 
enjoins  the  deed ! !" 


220  Review, 

The  United  States  are  a  republic,  with  a  single 
executive  periodically  chosen.  Suppose  that  three 
hundred  years  hence  they  should  be  under  the 
reign  of  a  hereditary  monarch  ;  and  the  question 
should  then  be  started  whether  this  was  the  ori- 
ginal order  or  not  ?  Those  who  favour  the 
negative  go  back  to  the  written  constitution, 
framed  in  1787,  and  show  that  a  hereditary  mo- 
narchy was  never  contemplated  in  that  instru- 
ment. Others  contend  that  '*  The  expressions  of 
the  constitution  are  indefinite ;  there  are  some 
things,  indeed,  which  look  a  little  republican-hke, 
and  might  be  accommodated  to  the  infant  state  of 
the  nation  ;  but  whoever  shall  consider  the  pur- 
poses of  the  order  therein  prescribed,  and  the  na- 
ture of  \he powers  therein  granted,  will  clearly  per- 
ceive that  the  one  cannot  be  attained,  nor  the 
other  exercised,  but  in  a  hereditary  monarchy." 
Well,  the  constitution  is  produced;  it  is  examined 
again  and  again ;  but  no  hereditary  monarchy 
is  recognized  there;  it  breathes  republicanism 
throughout :  What,  now,  would  be  thought  of  a 
man,  who  should  gravely  answer,  "  The  concur- 
rent testimony  of  all  the  historians  of  those  times 
is,  that  at,  or  very  shortly  after,  the  death  of  the 
members  of  the  convention  of  1787,  monarchy 
prevailed  throughout  the  United  States  ;  and  this 
is  proof  positive,  that  it  was  established  by  the 
convention." 

"  Nay,"  would  the  first  rejoin,  "  your  facts  are 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  221 

of  no  avail.  The  question  is,  not  what  prevailed 
after  the  constitution  was  adopted :  but  what  is 
the  constitution  itself?  There  it  is  :  let  it  argue 
its  own  cause." 

"  But,"  says  the  other,  "  how  could  so  great  a 
change,  as  that  from  a  republic  to  a  monarchy, 
happen  in  so  short  a  time  ?  and  that  without  re- 
sistance, or,  what  is  still  more  astonishing,  with= 
out  notice  ?" 

"You  may  settle  that,  "  retorts  the  first,"  at  your 
leisure.  That  there  has  been  a  material  change, 
I  see  as  clearly  as  the  light :  how  that  change  was 
effected,  is  none  of.  my  concern.  It  is  enough  for 
me  that  the  constitution,  fairly  interpreted,  knows 
nothing  of  the  existing  monarchy." 

Every  child  can  perceive  who  would  have  the 
best  of  this  argument ;  and  it  is  just  such  an  argu- 
ment as  we  are  managing  with  the  EpiscopaHans. 
Granting  them  all  they  ask  concerning  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers,  their  conclusion  is  "  good  for 
nothing,"  because  it  concludes,  as  we  have  abun- 
dantly shown,  against  the  New  Testament  itself 
It  is  vain  to  declaim  upon  the  improbability  and 
impossibility  of  so  sudden  and  universal  a  transi- 
tion from  Presbytery  to  Episcopacy,  as  they  main- 
tain must  have  taken  place  upon  our  plan.  The 
revolution  would  have  been  very  extraordinary,  we 
confess.  But  many  very  extraordinary  thmgs  are 
very  true.  All  that  the  hierarchy  gains  by  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  even  when  we  allow  her 


222  B 


evtew. 


to  state  it  in  her  own  way,  is  an  extraordinary 
fact  which  she  cannot  explain  for  herself;  and, 
therefore,  insists  that  we  shall  explain  it,  or  else 
bow  the  knee.  We  excuse  ourselves.  We  are 
not  compelled  to  the  latter,  and  we  are  under  no 
obligation  to  the  former.  The  controversy  must 
perpetually  return  to  a  simple  issue,  viz.  Whether 
Episcopacy  and  the  New  Testament  agree  or  not  ? 
We  have  proved,  as  we  think,  that  they  are  irre- 
concileable.  This  is  enough.  Here  is  the  New 
Testament  on  one  side,  and  the  hierarchy  on  the 
other.  Conceding  that  she  had  very  early  pos- 
session of  the  church,  what  follows  ?  Nothing  but 
that  order  of  the  church  was  very  early  corrupted ! 
Whether  we  can  or  cannot  trace  the  steps  and  fix 
the  date  of  this  corruption,  does  not  alter  the 
case.  Corruption  is  corruption  still.  If  v/e  can 
tell  nothing  about  the  rise  of  the  hierarchy,  our 
ignorance  does  not  destroy  its  contrariety  to  the 
scripture.  If  we  could  ascertain  the  very  hour  of 
its  rise,  the  discovery  would  not  increase  that 
contrariety.  Our  ignorance  and  our  knowledge 
on  this  subject  leave  the  original  question  exactly 
where  they  found  it.  A  thousand  volumes  may  be 
written ;  and  after  all,  the  final  appeal  must  be 
"  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony." 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  should  we  even  ac- 
quiesce in  the  account  which  our  episcopal  bre- 
thren give  of  the  primitive  testimony,  we  are 
justified  in  denying  their  conclusion :  seeing  that 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  223 

all  inferences  against  the  decision  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament itself,  are  necessarily  invalid  and  false,  be 
the  facts  from  which  they  are  deduced  ever  so 
many,  ever  so  strong,  or  ever  so  indisputable. 

But  although,  in  our  own  opinion,  the  ground 
on  which  the  prelatists  have  chosen  to  make  their 
principal  stand,  affords  them  so  little  advantage 
as  not  to  repay  the  trouble  of  dislodging  them,  we 
shall,  for  the  sake  of  their  further  satisfaction, 
proceed  to  do  them  this  service  also. 

They  have  heaped  assertion  upon  assertion, 
that  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  church  is  uni- 
versaUy  in  their  favour ;  so  explicitly  and  decisively 
in  their  favour,  that  if  Episcopacy  had  not  been 
instituted  by  apostolic  authority,  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church  must  suddenly  have  changed  her  gov- 
ernment from  one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other, 
without  any  adequate  cause,  and  without  any  op- 
portunity of  previous  concert.* 

When  our  opponents  talk  of  the  early  and  gene- 
ral prevalence  of  episcopacy,  they  must  mean 
episcopacy  as  embraced  by  themselves,,  i.  e.  as  restrict- 
ing the  power  of  ordination  and  government  to  the 
svperior  order  of  clergy  called  bishops  ;  or  else  they 
are  fighting  for  a  shadow. 

We  deny  their  representation  and  shall  prove 
it  to  be  false.t 

*  See  the  foregoing  extracts. 

f  We  cannot  forbear  remarking,  by  the  way,  a  striking  coinci- 
dence between  the  popish  and  the  episcopal  method  of  defence. 


224  Review. 

More  than  fourteen  hundred  years  ago  the  supe- 
riority of  the  Prelates  to  Presbyters  was  attacked, 
in  the  most  direct  and  open  manner,  as  having  no 
authority  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  ban- 
ner of  opposition  was  raised  not  by  a  mean  and 
obscure  declaimer ;  but  by  a  most  consummate 
Theologian.     "  By  one  who,  in  the  judgment  of 

When  they  begin  to  feel  themselves  pressed,  they  betake  them- 
selves to  the  scriptures  ;  but  finding  themselves  hard  pushed  here^ 
they  retreat  to  the  fathers.  There  is  scarcely  a  peculiarity  of 
popery  for  which  some  papal  polemics  do  not  pretend  to  have  their 
sanction.     Take  a  sample. 

"They  of  your"  (the  protestant)  "side,  that  have  read  the  fa- 
thers of  that  unspotted  church,  can  well  testify  (and  if  any  deny 
it,  it  shall  be  presently  shown)  that  the  Doctors,  Pastors,  and 
F'athers  of  that  church  do  allow  of  traditions;  that  they  acknow- 
ledge the  real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  of 
the  altar:  that  they  exhorted  the  people  to  confess  their  sins  unto 
their  ghostly  fathers :  that  they  affirmed,  that  Priests  have  power 
to  forgive  sins :  that  they  taught,  that  there  is  a  purgatory :  that 
prayer  for  the  dead  is  both  commendable  and  godly  :  that  there  is 
Limbus  Patrum ;  and  that  our  JSaviour  descended  into  hell,  to  de- 
liver the  ancient  fathers  of  the  Old  Testament;  because  before  his 
passion  none  ever  entered  into  heaven;  that  prayer  to  saints  and 
use  of  holy  images  was  of  great  account  amongst  them  :  that  man 
had  free-will,  and  that  for  his  meritorious  works  he  receiveth, 
through  the  assistance  of  God's  grace,  the  bliss  of  everlasting  hap- 
piness. 

"Now  would  I  fain  know  whether  of  both  have  the  true  Reli- 
gion, they  that  hold  all  these  above  said  points,  with  the  primitive 
Church;  or  they  that  do  most  vehemently  contradict  and  gainsay 
them  ?  They  that  do  not  disagree  with  that  holy  church  in  ajiy 
point  of  religion;  or  they  that  agree  with  it  but  in  very  few,  and 
disagree  in  almost  all  ? 

"Will  you  say,  that  these  fathers  maintained  these  opinions, 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God  ?    Why  you  know  that  they  were 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  225 

•*  Erasmus,  was,  without  controversy,  by  far  the 
most  learned  and  most  eloquent  of  all  the  Chris- 
tians ;  and  the  prince  of  Christian  Divines."*  By 
the  illustrious  JEROME.t 

Thus  he  lays  down  both  doctrine  and  fact  rela- 
tive to  the  government  of  the  church,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Titus  1 .  5. 

the  pillars  of  Christianity,  the  champions  of  Christ  his  church, 
and  of  the  true  CathoUc  religion,  which  they  most  learnedly  de- 
fended against  diverse  heresies  ;  and  therefore  spent  all  their  time 
in  a  most  serious  study  of  the  holy  scripture.  Or  will  you  say, 
that  although  they  knew  the  scriptures  to  repugn,  yet  they  brought 
in  the  aforesaid  opinions  by  malice  and  corrupt  intentions  ?  Why 
yourselves  cannot  deny,  but  that  they  lived  most  holy  and  virtuous 
lives,  free  from  all  malicious  corrupting,  or  perverting  of  God's 
holy  word,  and  by  their  holy  lives  are  now  made  worthy  to  reign 
with  God  in  his  glory.  Insomuch  as  their  admirable  learning 
may  sufficiently  cross  out  all  suspicion  of  ignorant  error;  and  their 
innocent  sanctity  freeth  us  from  all  mistrust  of  malicious  corrup- 
tion."    Challenge  of  a  Jesuit  to  Bishop  Usher. 

In  the  course  of  his  full  and  elaborate  answer  to  this  challenge, 
Usher  quotes  Cardinal  Bellarmine  as  one  "  who  would  face  us  down 
that  all  the  ancients  both  Greek  and  Latin,  from  the  very  time  of  the 
Apostles,  did  constantly  teach  that  there  ivas  a  purgatory.  Where- 
as," replies  Usher,  "  his  own  partners  could  tell  him  in  his  ear, 
that  in  the  ancient  writers  there  is  almost  no  mention  of  purgatory ; 
especially  in  the  Greek  writers.''  Usher's  Answer,  S^x.  p.  170,  4to. 
1625. 

For  "Purgatory,"  put  "Episcopacy,"  and  you  will  see  pretty 
nearly  how  the  account  stands  between  eminent  Episcopalians 
themselves. 

*  We  quote  the  words  of  one  who  was  assuredly  no  friend  to 
our  cause,  vid.  Cave,  His.  Litt.  Script:  Eccles.  p.  171.  Ed. 
1720.  Fol. 

f  Prosper,  who  was  nearly  his  cotemporary,  calls  him  magister 
mundi:  i.  e.  the  teacher  of  the  world.     lb- 

Vol.  III.  29 


226  Revi 


ew. 


That  thou   shoiddest  ordain   Presbyters   in  every 
city^  as  I  had  appointed  thee^ — "  What  sort  of  Pres- 

*  "  Qui  qualis  Presbyter  debeat  ordinari,  in  consequentibiis  dis- 
sereus  hoc  ait:  Si  qui  est  sine  crimine,  unius  uxoris  vir,"  et  cse- 
tera  :  postea  intulit,  "  Oportet.  n.  Episcopum  sine  crimine  esse, 
taiiquam  Dei  dispensatoreui."  Idem  est  ergo  Presbyter,  qui  et 
Episcopus,  et  antequam  diaholi  instinctti,  studia  in  religione  fierent, 
et  diceretur  in  populis  :  "  Ego  sum  Pauli,  ego  Apollo,  ego  autem 
Cephae  :"  communi  Preshyterorum  consilio  ecclesiae  gubernaban- 
tur.  Postquam  vero  unusquisque  eos,  quos  baptizaverat,  suos  pu- 
tabat  esse,  non  Christi:  in  toto  orhe  decretum  est,  ut  unus  de  Pres- 
byteris  tlectus  superjjoneretur  ceeteris,  ad  quern  omnis  ecclesia  eura 
pertineret,  et  schismatum  semina  tollerentur.  Putet  aliquis  non 
scripturarum,  sed  nostram,  esse  sententiara  Episcopum  et  Presby- 
terum  unum  esse  ;  et  aliud  setatis,  aliud  esse  nomen  officii :  relegat 
Apostoli  ad  Philippenses  verba  dicentis  :  Paulus  et  Timotheus 
servi  Jesu  Christi,  omnibus  Sanctis  in  Christo  Jesu,  qui  sunt  Philip- 
pis,  cum  Episcopis  et  Diaconis,  gratia  vobis  et  pax,  et  reliqua. 
Philippi  una  est  urbs  Macedoniae,  et  certe  in  una  civitate  jL^Zwres  ut 
nuncupantur,  Episcopi  esse  non  poterant.  Sed  quia  eosdem  Episco- 
pos  illo  tempore  quos  et  Presbyteros  appellabaut,  propterea  indifife- 
renter  de  Episcopis  quasi  de  Presbyteris  est  locutus.  Adhuc  hoc 
alicui  videatur  ambiguum,  nisi  altero  testimonio  comprobetur.  In 
Actibus  Apostolorum  scriptum  est,  quod  cum  venisset  Apostolus 
Miletum,  miserit  Ephesum,  et  vocaverit  Presbyteros  ecclesise  ejus- 
dem,  quibus  postea  inter  csetera  sit  locutus  :  attendite  vobis,  et  omni 
gregi  in  quo  vos  Spiritus  sanctus  posuit  Episcopos,pascere  ecclesiam 
Domini  quam  acquisivit  per  sanguincm  suum.  Et  hoc  diligentius 
observate,  quo  modo  unius  civitatis  Ephesi  Presbyteros  vocans, 
postea  eosdem  Episcopos  d'lxevit. — Hsec  propterea,  ut  ostenderemus 
apud  veteres  eosdem  fuisse  Presbyteros  quos  et  Episcopos.  Pau~ 
latim  vero,  ut  dissensionum  plantaria  evellerentur,  ad  unum  omnem 
solicitudinem  esse  delatam. — Sicut  ergo  Presbyteri  sciunt  se  ex  ec- 
chsiae  consuetudine  ei,  qui  sibi  propositus  fuerit,  esse  subjectos,  ita 
Episcopi  noverint  se  mogis  consuetudine  quam  dispositionis  domi- 
nica  veritate,  Presbyteris  esse  majores,  Hieronymi  Com  :  in  Tit: 
I.  I.  Opp.  Tom.  VI.  p.  168  ed  :  Victorii,  Paris  1623.  Fol 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  227 

byters  ought  to  be  ordained  he  shows  afterwards : 
If  any  be  blameless^  the  husband  of  one  wife^  &c.  and 
then  adds,  for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless^  as  the 
steward  of  God,  (kc.  A  Presbyter,  therefore,  is  the 
same  as  a  bishop :  and  before  there  Vv^ere,  by  the  in- 
stigation of  the  devil,  parties  in  rehgion ;  and  it  was 
said  among  different  people,  /  am  of  Paul,  and  I 
of  Jipollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  churches  were 
governed  by  the  joint  counsel  of  the  Presbyters.  But 
afterwards,  when  every  one  accounted  those  whom 
he  baptized  as  belonging  to  himself  and  not  to 
Christ,  it  was  decreed  throughout  the  ivhole  ivorld 
that  one,  chosen  from  among  the  Presbyters, 
should  be  put  over  the  rest,  and  that  the  whole 
care  of  the  church  should  be  committed  to  him, 
and  the  seeds  of  schisms  taken  away. 

"  Should  any  one  think  that  this  is  my  private 
opinion,  and  not  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  let 
him  read  the  words  of  the  apostle  in  his  epistle  to 
the  Phihppians ;  '  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  ser- 
vants of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ 
Jesus  which  are  at  Phihppi,  with  the  bishops  and 
deacons,'  &c.  Philippi,  is  a  single  city  of  Mace- 
donia; and  certainly  in  one  city  there  could  not 
be  several  bishops  as  they  are  now  styled ;  but  as 
they,  at  that  time,  called  the  very  same  persons 
bishops  whom  they  called  Presbyters,  the  Apostle 
has  spoken  without  distinction  of  bishops  as 
Presbyters. 

"  Should  this  matter  yet  appear  doubtful  to  any 


228  R 


eview. 


one,  unless  it  be  proved  by  an  additional  testi- 
mony ;  it  is  written  in  the  acts  of  the  Apostles, 
that  when  Paul  had  come  to  Miletum,  he  sent  to 
Ephesus  and  called  the  Presbyters  of  that  church, 
and  among  other  things  said  to  them,  '  take  heed 
to  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock  in  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  hath  made  you  bishops.'  Take  particular 
notice,  that  calling  the  Presbyters  of  the  single 
city  of  Ephesus,  he  afterwards  names  the  same 
persons  Bishops."  After  further  quotations  from 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  from  Peter,  he 
proceeds  :  "  Our  intention  in  these  remarks  is  to 
show,  that,  among  the  ancients.  Presbyters  and 
Bishops  were  the  very  same.  But  that  by  little 
AND  LITTLE,  that  the  plants  of  dissentions  might  be 
plucked  up,  the  whole  concern  was  divolved  upon 
an  individual.  As  the  Presbyters,  therefore,  know 
that  they  are  subjected,  by  the  custom  of  the 
CHURCH,  to  him  who  is  set  over  them ;  so  let  the 
Bishops  know,  that  they  are  greater  than  Presby- 
ters MORE  by  CUSTOM,  thau  by  any  real  appoint- 
ment OF  CHRIST." 

He  pursues  the  same  argument,  with  great  point, 
in  his  famous  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  asserting  and 
proving  from  the  Scriptures,  that  in  the  beginning 
and  during  the  Apostles'  days,  a  Bishop  and  a 
Presbyter  were  the  same  thing.  He  then  goes  on: 
''  As  to  the  fact,  that  afterwards,  one  was  elect- 
ed to  preside  over  the  rest,  this  was  done  as  a 
remedy  against  schism  ;  lest  every  one  drawing 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  229 

his  proselytes  to  himself,  should  rend  the  church 
of  Christ.  For  even  at  Alexandria,  from  the 
Evangelist  Mark  to  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius,  the  Presbyters  always  chose  one  of 
their  number,  placed  him  in  a  superior  station, 
and  gave  him  the  title  of  Bishop :  in  the  same 
manner  as  if  an  army  should  make  an  emperor ; 
or  the  deacons  should  choose  from  among  them- 
selves, one  whom  they  knew  to  be  particularly 
active,  and  should  call  him  arch-deacon.  For, 
excepting  ordination,  what  is  done  by  a  Bishop, 
which  may  not  be  done  by  a  Presbyter?  Nor  is  it 
to  be  supposed,  that  the  church  should  be  one 
thing  at  Rome,  and  another  in  all  the  world  be- 
sides. Both  France  and  Britain,  and  Africa,  and 
Persia,  and  the  East,  and  India,  and  all  the  bar- 
barous nations  worship  one  Christ,  observe  one 
rule  of  truth.  If  you  demand  authority,  the  globe 
is  greater  than  a  city.  Wherever  a  Bishop  shall 
be  found,  whether  at  Rome,  or  Eugubium,  or 
Constantinople,  or  Rhegium,  or  Alexandria,  or 
Tanis,  he  has  the  same  pretensions,  the  same 
priesthood."* 

*  Quod  autem  postea  unuselectus  est,  quicsBteris  praeponerelur, 
inschismatis  remedium  factum  est  :  ne  unusquisque  ad  se  traheng 
Christi  Ecclesiam  rumperet.  Nam  et  Alexandrise  a  Marco  Evan- 
gelista  usque  ad  Heraclam  &  Dionysium  Episcopos,  presbyteri 
semper  unum  ex  se  electum,  in  excelsiori  gradu  collocatum,  Episcopum 
nomindbant :  quomodo  si  exercitus  imperatorem  facial ;  aut  dia- 
coni  eligant  de  se,  quern  industrium  noveriut,  &  archidiaconum 
vocent.     Q^iiid  euim  facii,  exceptn  ordinatione,  Episcopus,  quod  preS' 


230  Review, 

Here  is  an  account  of  the  origin  and  progress 
of  Episcopacy,  by  a  Father  whom  the  Episcopa- 
hans  themselves  admit  to  have  been  the  most  able 
and  learned  man  of  his  age  ;  and  how  contradic- 
tory it  is  to  their  own  account,  the  reader  will  be 
at  no  loss  to  perceive,  when  he  shall  have  followed 
us  through  an  analysis  of  its  several  parts. 

1.  Jerome  expressly  denies  the  superiority  of 
Bishops  to  Presbyters,  by  divine  right.  To  prove 
his  assertion  on  this  head,  he  goes  directly  to  the 
scriptures  ;  and  argues,  as  the  advocates  of  parity 
do,  from  the  interchangeable  titles  of  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  ;  from  the  directions  given  to  them  with- 
out the  least  intimation  of  difference  in  their  autho- 
rity; and  from  the  powers  of  Presbyters,  undis- 
puted in  his  day.  It  is  very  true,  that  the  reasoning 
from  names,  is  said,  by  those  whom  it  troubles,  to 
be  "  miserable  sophistry,"  and  "  good  for  nothing:" 
But  as  Jerome  advances  it  with  the  utmost  confi- 
dence, they  might  have  forborne  such  a  compli- 
ment to  the  "  prince  of  divines"  in  the  fourth 
century ;  especially  as  none  of  his  cotemporaries, 
so  far  as  we  recollect,  ever  attempted  to  answer 

byter  non  faciat?  Nee  altera  Romanse  urbis  Ecclesia,  altera  to- 
tius  orbis  existimanda  est.  Et  Gallise,  &  Brittanise,  &  Africa,  & 
Persis,  &.  Orieus,  &  ludia,  &  omues  barbarse  nationes  unum 
Christum  adorant,  unam  observant  regulam  veritatis.  Si  auc- 
toritas  quseritur,  orbis  major  est  urbe.  Ubieumque  fuerit  Episeo- 
pus,  sive  Romse,  sive  Eugubii,  sive  Constautinopoli,  sive  Rhegii, 
sive  Alexandrise,  sive  Tanis;  ejusdemmeriti,  ejiisdem  «fe  saeerdotii. 
Hieron.  0pp.  T.  11.  p.  624. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  231 

it.  It  is  a  little  strange  that  laymen,  and  clergy- 
men, deacons,  priests,  and  bishops,  should  all  be 
silenced  by  a  page  of  "  miserable  sophistry  !" 

2.  Jerome  states  it,  as  a  historical  fact  ^  that,  in 
the  original  constitution  of  the  church,  before  the 
devil  had  as  much  influence  as  he  acquired  after- 
wards, the  churches  ivere  governed  by  the  joint  counsels 
of  the  Presbyters. 

3.  Jerome  states  it  as  a  historical  fact ^  that  this 
government  of  the  churches,  by  Presbyters  alone,, 
continued  until,  for  the  avoiding  of  scandalous 
quarrels  and  schisms,  it  was  thought  expedient  to 
alter  it.  "  J^ftenvards^^''  says  he,  "  when  every  one 
accounted  those  whom  he  baptized  as  belonging 
to  himself,  and  not  to  Christ,  it  was  decreed  through- 
out the  whole  world,,  that  one,  chosen  from  among 
the  Presbyters,  should  be  put  over  the  rest,  and 
that  the  whole  care  of  the  church  should  be  com- 
mitted to  him." 

4.  Jerome  states  it  as  a  historical  fact,,  that  this 
change  in  the  government  of  the  church — this 
creation  of  a  superiour  order  of  ministers,  took 
place,  not  at  once,  but  by  degrees — "  Paulatim^'''' 
says  he,  "  by  little  and  little."  The  precise  date 
on  which  this  innovation  upon  p.rimitive  order 
commenced,,  he  does  not  mention;  but  he  says 
positively,  that  it  did  not  take  place  till  the  factious 
spirit  of  the  Corinthians  had  spread  itself  in  dif- 
ferent countries,  to  an  alarming  extent.  "  In 
populis^'^''  is  his  expression.     Assuredly,  this  was 


232  Review, 

not  the  work  of  a  day.  It  had  not  been  accom- 
plished when  the  apostoHc  epistles  were  written, 
because  Jerome  appeals  to  these  for  proof  that  the 
churches  were  then  governed  by  the  joint  counsels 
of  Presbyters;  and  it  is  incredible  that  such 
ruinous  dissensions,  had  they  existed,  should  not 
have  been  noticed  in  letters  to  others  beside  the 
Corinthians.  The  disease  indeed,  was  of  a  nature 
to  spread  rapidly ;  but  still  it  must  have  time  to 
travel.  With  all  the  zeal  of  Satan  himself,  and  ol 
a  parcel  of  wicked  or  foolish  clergymen  to  help 
him,  it  could  not  march  from  people  to  people, 
and  clime  to  clime,  but  in  a  course  of  years.  If 
Episcopacy  was  the  apostolic  cure  for  schism,  the 
contagion  must  have  smitten  the  nations  like  a 
flash  of  Hghtning.  This  would  have  been  quite 
as  extraordinary  as  an  instantaneous  change  of 
government;  and  would  have  afforded  full  as 
much  scope  for  pretty  declamation,  as  the  dream 
of  such  a  change,  which  Cyprian  and  the  Layman 
insist  we  shall  dream  whether  we  will  or  not.  No : 
The  progress  of  the  mischief  was  gradual,  and  so, 
according  to  Jerome,  was  the  progress  of  the  re- 
medy which  the  wisdom  of  the  times   devised.* 

*  Our  opponents,  who  contend  that  nothing  can  be  concluded 
from  the  promiscuous  use  of  the  scriptural  titles  of  office,  are  yet 
compelled  to  acknowledge  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  aftcT- 
wards  separated  and  restricted,  the  former  to  the  superiour,  and  the 
latter  to  the  inferiour  order  of  ministers.  We  would  ask  them  when 
and  why  this  was  done  ?  If  it  was  not  necessai-y  to  distinguish 
these  officers  by  specific  titles  in  the  apostles'  day,  what  necessity 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  233 

We  agree  with  them,  who  think  that  the  experi- 
ment introduced  more  evil  than  it  banished.* 

5.  Jerome  states  as  historical  facts  ^  that  the  ele- 
vation of  one  Presbyter  over  the  others,  was  a  hu- 
man contrivance ; — was  not  imposed  by  authority, 

was  there  for  such  a  distinctiou  afterwards?  The  church  might 
have  gone  on,  as  she  began,  to  this  very  hour;  and  what  would 
have  been  the  harm  ?  Nay,  there  iims  a  necessity  for  the  distinction ; 
and  Jerome  has  blown  the  secret.  When  one  of  the  Presbyters  was 
set  over  the  heads  of  the  others,  there  was  a  new  officer,  and  he 
wanted  a  name.  So  they  appropriated  the  term  Bishop  to  him; 
and  thus  avoided  the  odium  of  inventing  a  title  unknown  to  the 
scripture.  The  people,  no  doubt,  were  told  that  there  was  no 
material  alteration  in  the  scriptural  order ;  and  hearing  nothing  but 
a  name  to  which  they  had  always  been  accustomed,  they  were  the 
less  startled.     The  Trojan  horse  over  again  ! 

*  One  thing  is  obvious.  Had  there  never  been,  in  the  persons 
of  the  prelates,  a  sort  of  spiritual  noblesse ;  there  could  never  have 
been,  in  the  person  of  the  Pope,  a  spiritual  monarch.  For  the  very 
same  reason  that  a  Bishop  was  appointed  to  preserve  unity  among 
the  Presbyters,  it  was  necessary,  in  process  of  time,  to  appoint  an 
Archbishop  for  preserving  unity  among  the  bishops ;  for  we  never 
yet  heard,  that  increase  of  power  makes  its  possessors  less  aspiring. 
In  the  same  manner  a.  patriarch  became  necessary  to  keep  their 
graces  the  Archbishops  in  order  :  and  finally,  our  sovereign  lord 
the  Pope,  to  look  after  the  patriarchs  !  The  analogy  is  perfect ;  the 
reasoning  one  ;  and  the  progression  regular.  \Vhat  a  beautiful 
pile!  How  correct  its  proportions  !  how  elegant  its  workmanship! 
how  compact  and  firm  its  structure  !  the  Christian  people  at  the 
bottom  ;  rising  above  them,  the  preaching  deacons:  next  in  order, 
the  Presbyters  ;  above  them,  the  Bishops  ;  these  support  the  Arch- 
bishops, over  whom  tower  the  patriarchs  ;  and  one  universal 
Bishop  terminates  the  whole.  Thus  this  glorious  Babylonish  edi- 
fice, having  for  its  base  the  Christian  world,  tapers  olT,  by  exquisite 
gradations,  into  "  his  holiness'*  at  Rome. 

Vol.  HI.  30 


234  Review. 

but  crept  in  by  custom  ; — and  that  the  Presbyters  of 
his  day,  kneiv  this  very  well,  jis^  therefore^  says  he, 
the  Presbyters  know  that  they  are  subjected  to  their 
SKperiour  by  custom  ;  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they 
are  above  the  Presbyters^  rather  by  the  custom  of  the 
CHURCH,  than  by  the  Lord''s  appointment. 

6.  Jerome  states  it  as  a  historical  fact^  that  the 
first  bishops  were  made  by  the  Presbyters  them- 
selves;  and  consequently  they  could  neither  have, 
nor  communicate  any  authority  above  that  of 
Presbyters.  "  Afterwards^''  says  he,  "  to  prevent 
schism,  one  was  elected  to  preside  over  the  rest." 
Elected  and  commissioned  by  whom  ?  By  the 
Presbyters :  for  he  immediately  gives  you  a  broad 
fact  which  it  is  impossible  to  explain  away.  "At 
Alexandria,"  he  tells  you,  "  from  the  evangehst 
Mark  to  the  Bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius," 
i.  e.  till  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  "tlie 
Presbyters  always  chose  one  of  their  number,  placed 
him  in  a  superiour  station^  and  gave  him  the  title  of 
Bishopy 

We  have  not  forgotten  the  gloss  put  upon  this 
passage,  by  Detector^  in  the  collection  under  re- 
view. 

"  The  truth  is,"  says  he,  "  that  .Jerome  affords  no  authority 
for  this  assertion.  In  his  Epistle  to  Evag.  he  says,  "Nam 
et  Alexandrige,  a  Marco  Evangelista  usque  ad  Heraclam  et 
Dionysium  Episcopos,  Presbyteri  semper  unum  ex  se  electum, 
excelsiori  gradu  collocatum,  Episcopum  nomi7iabant,  quomodo 
si  exercitus  imperatorem  faciat,  aut  diaconi  eligant  de  se  quern 
industrium  noverint,  et  archidiaconum  vocent."     "  At  Alex- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  235 

andria,  from  Mark  down  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius  the 
Bishops,  the  Presbyters  always  named  one,  who  being  chosen 
from  among  themselves,  they  called  their  Bishop,  he  being 
placed  in  a  higher  station,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  an  army 
should  make  their  general,  &-c."  Does  St.  Jerome  here  de- 
clare, as  the  fictitious  "  Clemens  "  asserts,  that  "  the  Presbyters 
ordained  their  Bishop  V  No  ;  Jerome  merely  asserts,  that  the 
Presbyters  namcd^  chose  one  to  be  their  Bishop.  Does  it  hence 
follow,  that  they  gave  him  his  commission  ;  tliat  they  ordained 
himl  Does  it  always  follow,  that  because  an  army  choose  their 
general,  he  does  not  receive  his  commission  from  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  state  V* 

With  all  deference  to  this  learned  critic,  we 
cannot  help  our  opinion,  that  the  appointment,  or, 
if  you  please,  ordination,  of  tlie  first  bishops  by 
Presbyters,  not  only  follows  from  the  words  of  Je- 
rome, but  is  plainly  asserted  by  them. 

Dr.  Hobart,  overlooking  the  Roman  idiom,  has 
thrown  into  his  English,  an  ambiguity  which  does 
not  exist  in  the  Latin  of  Jerome.  According  to 
the  well  known  genius  of  that  language,  especially 
in  writers  who  condense  their  thoughts,  a  verb 
governing  one  or  more  participles,  in  the  con- 
struction before  us,  expresses  the  same  meaning, 
though  with  greater  elegance,  as  would  be  ex- 
pressed by  verbs  instead  of  participles.t     It  is 

*  Detector,  No.  1.  Collec.  p.  84. 

f  Ex.  gr.  Iq  Caesar's  description  of  the  bridge  which  he  con- 
structed over  the  Rhine,  the  first  sentence  is  exactly  analogous  to 
the  sentence  of  Jerome:  "Tigna  bina  sesquipedalia,  paulhnn  ab 
imo  praacuta,  dimensa  ad  allitudinem  fluminis,  intervallo  pedum 
duorum  inter  se  jungebat.'"  De  Bello  Gallico.  Lib.  IV.  c.  17.  p. 
187.  ed.  OuDENORPH,  4io.  1737. 


236  Review, 

very  possible  that  the  Detector  might  not  use  this 
construction ;  but  then  the  Detector  does  not  write 
Latin  hke  old  Jerome.  We  should  display  the 
sentence  at  length,  converting  the  participles  into 
verbs,  were  it  not  for  fear  of  affronting  a  scholar 
who  insists  that  he  has  "  sufficient  learning  to  de- 
fend the  Episcopal  church."* 

"The  truth  is,"  that  this  "famous"  testimony 
of  Jerome,  points  out,  in  the  process  of  bishop- 
making,  but  one  agency,,  and  that  is  the  agency  of 
Presbyters,  Dr.  H.  himself  has  unwittingly  con- 
firmed our  interpretation  in  the  very  paragraph 
where  he  questions  it.  His  words  are  these : 
"Jerome  merely  asserts  that  the  Presbyters  named,, 
chose  one  to  be  their  bishop."  Not  merely  this ;  for 
the  words  which  Dr.  H.  renders  "  being  placed  in 
a  higher  station,"  are  under  the  very  same  con- 
nection and  government  with  the  words  which  he 
renders,  "being  chosen  from  among  themselves ;" 
and  if,  as  he  has  admitted,  the  latter  declare  a 
bishop  to  have  been  elected  by  the  Presbyters,  then, 
himself  being  judge,  the  former  must  declare  him 
to  have  been  commissioned  by  them.  This  is  an 
awkward  instance  o{  felo  de  se  ;  yet  a  proof,  how 
properly  the  Reverend  critic  has  assumed  the  ap- 

We  humbly  apprehend  that  Caesar  had  as  much  to  do  in  sharp- 
ening and  measuring  the  beams,  as  he  had  in  joining  them ;  and 
did  not  mean  to  say  that  the  last  operation  was  performed  by  his 
own  hands,  and  the  former  by  his  workmen. 

*  Hoeart's  Apology,  p.  241. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  237 

pellation  oi  Detector  ;  for  he  has  completely  detect- 
ed himself,  and  no  one  else ! 

That  we  rightly  construe  Jerome's  assertion,  is 
clear,  from  the  scope  of  his  argument,  and  from 
his  phraseology  toward  the  close  of  the  paragraph. 

His  position  is,  that  a  Bishop  and  a  Presbyter 
were,  at  first,  the  same  officer.  And  so  notorious 
was  the  fact,  that  he  appeals  to  the  history  of  the 
church  in  Alexandria,  as  an  instance  which  lasted 
a  century  and  a  half,  that  when  Bishops  were 
made,  they  were  made  by  Presbyters.  But  had 
Dr.  H.'s  construction  been  right,  had  Prelates 
alone  ordained  other  prelates,  the  fact,  instead  of 
being ybr  Jerome,  would  have  been  directly  against 
him :  and  surely  he  was  not  so  dull  as  to  have 
overlooked  this  circumstance;  although  it  seems 
to  have  escaped  the  notice  of  some  of  his  saga- 
cious commentators. 

Jerome  says,  moreover,  that  Presbyters  origi- 
nally became  Bishops,  much  in  the  same  way  as  if 
an  army  should  "  make  an  Emperor;  or  the  dea- 
cons should  elect  one  of  themselves,  and  call  him 
jirch-deacon.'^'' 

The  Detector  has  given  the  passage  a  twisty  in 
the  hope  o^  twisting  Jerome  out,  and  twisting  the 
hierarchy  in.  "  Does  it  always  follow,"  he  de- 
mands, "  that  because  an  army  choose  their  gene- 
ral, he  does  not  receive  his  commission  from  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  state  ?"  Certainly  not : 
Although  he  would  have  gratified   some  of  his 


238  Review. 

readers  by  producing  examples  of  the  armies  of 
those  ages  choosing  their  general,  and  remitting 
him  to  a  higher  authority  for  his  commission. 
But  how  came  the  Detector  to  alter  Jerome's 
phrase  from  "  making'''  to  "  choosing'^  a  general  ? 
We  always  thought,  that  making  and  commission- 
ing an  officer,  are  the  same  thing.  Further,  how 
came  the  Detector  to  render  Jerome's  "  impera- 
tor'''  by  '''  general?''''  Almost  all  the  world,  (for  the 
Detector  seems  to  be  an  exception,)  knows  that 
"  Imperator^''''  in  Jerome's  day,  signified  not  "  gene- 
ral," but  "  Emperor  ;"  and  was  the  highest  official 
title  of  the  Roman  monarchs.  It  is  further  known, 
that  the  army  had,  on  more  occasions  than  one, 
made^n  emperor;  and  that  this  was  all  the  commis- 
sion he  had.  "  You  inquire,"  says  Jerome,  '^  how 
the  bishops  were  at  first  appointed.  Suppose  the 
deacons  should  get  together  and  elect  one  of  their 
number  to  preside  over  the  rest,  with  the  title  of 
Arch-deacon  ;  or  suppose  the  army  should  elevate 
a  person  whom  they  thought  fit,  to  the  Imperial 
throne ;  just  so,  by  tlicir  own  authority  and  elec- 
tion, did  the  Presbyters  make  the  first  Bishops." — 
And  yet  Dr.  H.  can  find,  in  this  very  testimony,  a 
salvo  for  Episcopal  ordination. — His  powers  o{  de- 
tection are  very  uncommon ; 

For  optics  sharp  he  needs,  I  ween, 
Who  sees  what  is  not  to  be  seen  ! 

7.  Jerome  states  it,  as  a  historical  fact  ^  that  even 
in  his  own  day,  that  is,  toward  the  end   of  the 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  239 

fourth  century,  there  was  no  power,  excepting  or- 
dination, exercised  by  a  Bishop,  which  might  not 
be  exercised  by  a  Presbyter.  "  What  does  a  Bi- 
shop,"' he  asks,  "  excepting  ordination,  w^iicli  a 
Presbyter  may  not  do  ?" 

Two  observations  force  themselves  upon  us. 

1st.  Jerome  challenges  the  whole  world,  to  show 
in  what  prerogative  a  Presbyter  was,  at  that  time^ 
inferiour  to  a  Bishop,  excepting  the  single  power 
of  ordination.  A  challenge  which  common  sense 
would  have  repressed,  had  public  opinion  con- 
cerning the  rights  of  Presbyters  allowed  it  to  be 
successfully  met. 

2d.  Although  it  appears  from  Jerome  himself, 
that  the  prelates  were  not  then  in  the  habit  of  as- 
sociating the  Presbyters  with  themselves,  in  an 
equal  right  of  government^  yet,  as  he  told  the  for- 
mer, to  their  faces,  that  the  right  was  undeniable, 
and  ought  to  be  respected  by  them,  it  presents  us 
with  a  strong  fact  in  the  progress  of  Episcopal  do- 
mination. Here  was  a  power  in  Presbyters,  which, 
though  undisputed,  lay,  for  the  most  part,  dor- 
mant. The  transition  from  disuse,  to  denial,  and 
from  denial  to  extinction  of  powers  which  the  pos- 
sessors have  not  vigilance,  integrity,  or  spirit  to 
enforce,  is  natural,  short,  and  rapid.  According 
to  Jerome's  declaration,  the  hierarchy  did  not  pre- 
tend to  the  exclusive  right  of  government.  There- 
fore, there  was  but  half  a  hierarchy,  according  to 
the  present  system.     That  the  Bishops  had,  some 


240  Review, 

time  after,  the  powers  of  ordination  and  govern- 
ment both,  is  clear.  How  did  they  acquire  the 
monopoly?  By  apostolic  institution  ?  No.  Jerome 
refutes  that  opinion  from  the  scriptures  and  his- 
tory. By  apostolical  tradition  }  No.  For  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  their  single  pre- 
rogative over  Presbyters  was  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation. Government  was  at  first  exercised  by  the 
Presbyters  in  common.  When  they  had,  by  their 
own  act,  placed  a  superiour  over  their  own 
heads,  they  rewarded  his  distinction,  his  toils, 
and  his  perils,  with  a  proportionate  reverence ; 
they  grew  slack  about  the  maintenance  of  trouble- 
some privilege ;  till  at  length,  their  courtesy,  their 
indolence,  their  love  of  peace,  or  their  hope  of 
promotion,  permitted  their  high  and  venerable 
trust  to  glide  into  the  hands  of  their  prelates.  We 
have  no  doubt  that  the  course  of  the  ordaining 
power  was  similar,  though  swifter. 

Nothing  can  be  more  pointless  and  pithless  than 
the  declamation  of  Cyprian,  the  Layman,  and  their 
Bishop,  on  the  change  which  took  place  in  the 
original  order  of  the  church.  They  assume  a 
false  fact ^  to  wit,  that  the  change  must  have  hap- 
pened, if  it  happened  at  all,  instantaneously :  and 
then  they  expatiate,  with  great  vehemence,  on  the 
impossibility  of  such  an  event.  This  is  mere  noise. 
The  change  was  not  instantaneous,  nor  sudden. 
The  testimony  of  Jerome,  which  declares  that  it 
was  gradual^  has  sprung  a  mine  under  the  very 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  241 

foundation  of  their  edifice,  and  blown  it  into  the 
air.  Were  we  inclined  to  take  up  more  of  the 
reader's  time  on  this  topic,  we  might  turn  their 
own  weapon,  such  as  it  is,  against  themselves. 
They  do  not  pretend  that  Archbishops,  Patri- 
archs, and  Primates,  are  of  Apostolical  institution. 
They  will  not  so  insult  the  understanding  and  the 
senses  of  men,  as  to  maintain  that  these  officers 
have  no  more  power  than  simple  Bishops.  Where, 
then,  were  all  the  principles  of  adherence  to  Apos- 
lic  order  when  these  creatures  of  human  policy 
made  their  entrance  into  the  church  ?  Among 
whom  w^ere  the  daring  innovators  to  be  found  ? 
Where  was  the  learning  of  the  age  ?  Where  its 
spirit  of  piety,  and  its  zeal  of  martyrdom  ?  Where 
were  the  Presbyters?  Where  the  Bishops? 
What!  all,  all  turned  traitors  at  once?  All,  all 
conspire  to  abridge  their  own  rights,  and  submit 
their  necks  to  new-made  superiours  ?  What ! 
none  to  reclaim  or  remonstrate?  Absurd!  In- 
credible !  Impossible !  These  questions,  and  a 
thousand  like  them,  might  be  asked  by  an  advo- 
cate for  the  divine  right  of  Patriarchs^  with  as 
much  propriety  and  force  as  they  are  asked  by 
advocates  of  the  simpler  Episcopacy.  And  so, 
by  vociferating  on  abstract  principles^  the  evidence 
of  men's  eyes  and  ears  is  to  be  overturned,  and 
they  are  to  believe  that  there  are  not  now,  and 
never  have  been,  such  things  as  Archbishops,  Pa- 
triarchs, or  Primates  in  the  Christianized  world ; 
Vol.  III.  31 


242  Revveiv, 

seeing  that  by  the  assumption  of  the  argument,  they 
have  no  divine  original;  and  by  its  terms,  they 
could  not  have  been  introduced  by  mere  human 
contrivance. 

To  return  to  Jerome.  The  Prelatists  being  un- 
able to  evade  his  testimony  concerning  the  change 
which  was  effected  in  the  original  order  of  the 
church,  would  persuade  us  that  he  means  a  change 
brought  about  by  the  authority  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves."*     But  the  subterfuge  is  unavailing.     For, 

(I.)  It  alleges  a  conjectural  tradition  against  the 
authority  of  the  written  scriptures.  For  no  trace 
of  a  change  can  be  seen  there. 

(2.)  It  overthrows  completely  all  the  proof  drawn 
for  the  hierarchy  from  the  Apostolic  records.  For, 
if  this  change  was  introduced  by  the  Apostles  af- 
ter their  canonical  writings  were  closed,  then  it  is 
vain  to  seek  for  it  in  those  writings.  The  conse- 
quence is,  that  the  Hierarchists  must  either  retreat 
from  the  New  Testament,  or  abandon  Jerome. 

(3.)  It  makes  the  intelhgent  father  a  downright 
fool — to  plead  Apostolic  authority  for  the  original 
equality  of  ministers ;  and  in  the  same  breath  to 
produce  that  same  authority  for  the  inequality 
which  he  was  resisting ! 

(4.)  To  crown  the  whole,  it  tells  us  that  the 
apostles  having  fixed,  under  the  influence  of  divine 
inspiration,  an  order  for  the  church ;  found,  upon  a 
few  years'  trial,  that  it  would  not  do,  and  were 

*  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  174,  &c. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  243 

obliged  to  mend  it :  only  they  forgot  to  apprise  the 
churches  of  the  alteration;  and  so  left  the  ex- 
ploded order  in  the  rule  of  faith ;  and  the  new 
order  out  of  it ;  depositing  the  commission  of  the 
prelates  with  that  kind  foster-mother  of  the  hie- 
rarchy, Tradition  /* 

We  may  now  remind  our  reader  of  the  Lay- 
man's declaration,  that  we  "  can  produce  no  record 
of  a  CHANGE ;  but  are  obliged  to  imagine  one^  in  op- 
position to  the  vNiFORM  testimony  of  the  primitive  Fa- 
thers /"  And  of  the  de-claration  of  Cyprian,  that  we 
talk  "  of  a  change  that  must  have  taken  place  at  an 
early  period ;  but  can  produce  no  proof  on  which  to 
ground  our  bold  assertions " — That  we  "  are  coun- 
tenanced by  NONE  OF  THE  RECORDS  of  thcsc  times  that 
have  been  transmitted  to  us'''' — That  our  opinion  is 
"  mere  conjecture^  a  creature  of  the  imagination  !  /" 
These  gentlemen  have,  indeed,  made  their  ex- 
cuse ;  they  have  honestly  told  us,  what  their  pages 
verify,  that  they  are  but  '•  striplings  "  in  literature. 
But  that  a  prelate,  from  whom  we  have  a  right  to 
look  for  digested  knowledge,  and  scrupulous  ac- 
curacy, should  deal  out  the  same  crude  and  un- 
qualified language,  excites  both  surprise  and 
regret.  He  has  been  pleased  to  say,  that  our  late 
brother,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Linn,  in  "  representing  Jerome 
as  favouring  the  Presbyterian  scheme  of  church  go- 

*  If  any  of  our  readers  wishes  to  have  a  fuller  view  of  the  wri- 
tings of  the  hierarchy  on  Jerome's  spear,  we  advise  him  to  read 
Dr.  Hobart's  Apology,  p.  174 — ]94. 


244  R 


eview. 


vernment^^'^  has  ^'-pursued  the  usual  mode  of  artful 
MISREPRESENTATION."  With  whoTYi  the  misrepresen- 
tation Hes,  we  leave  to  public  opinion.  But  as  we 
wish  to  give  every  one  his  due,  we  cannot  charge 
the  Right  Reverend  Prelate  with  any  art;  nor 
withhold  an  advice,  that  when  he  is  searching,  on 
this  subject,  for  a  "  spark  of  modesty,"  he  would 
direct  his  inquiries  to  a  "  bosom  "  to  which  he  has 
much  easier  access,  than  to  the  bosom  of  any 
Presbyterian  under  heaven. 

After  this  exhibition  of  Jerome's  testimony,  it 
would  be  superfluous  to  follow  with  particular 
answers,  all  the  petty  exceptions  which  are  found- 
ed upon  vague  allusions  and  incidental  phrases. 
Jerome,  like  every  other  writer  upon  subjects 
which  require  a  constant  reference  to  surrounding 
habits,  conforms  his  speech  to  his  circumstfjnces. 
He  could  not  be  for  ever  on  his  guard ;  and  if  he 
had  been,  no  vigilance  could  have  secured  him 
from  occasional  expressions  which  might  be  inter- 
preted as  favourable  to  a  system  which  he  solemn- 
ly disapproved.  This  will  sufficiently  account  for 
those  disconnected  sentences  which  the  friends  of 
the  hierarchy  have  so  eagerly  seized.  We  could 
show,  taking  them  one  by  one,  that  they  fall  very 
far  short  of  the  mark  to  which  they  are  directed.* 

*  The  quotation  which  stands  most  in  the  way  of  our  argument, 
and  of  Jerome's  testimony,  is  from  his  "Catalogue  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Writers  ;"  where,  says  Dr.  Hobart,  ♦'  he  records  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  '  Jabies,  immediately  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  having  been 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  245 

When  we  want  to  know  a  man's  matured  thoughts 
on  a  disputed  point,  we  must  go  to  those  parts  of 
his  works  where  he  has  deUberately,  and  of  set 
purpose,  handled  it.  All  his  looser  observations 
must  be  controlled  by  these.  A  contrary  proce- 
dure inverts  every  law  of  criticism ;  and  the  inver- 
sion is  not  the  more  tolerable,  or  the  less  repre- 
hensible, because  advocates  of  the  hierarchy  have 
chosen  to  adopt  it.  But  if  Jerome's  testimony  is 
to  be  slighted,  because  he  was  fervid,  impetuous, 
and  unceremonious,  we  much  fear  that  some  of  the 
most  important  facts  in  ecclesiastical  and  civil 
history  must  be  branded  as  apocryphal.  We  are 
very  sure  that  none  of  Dr.  H.'s  friends  could  ask 

ORDAINED  BISHOP  OF  JERUSALEM,  uudertook  the  chai'ge  of  the 
church  at  Jerusalem.  Timothy  was  ordained  bishop  of  the 
Ephesians  by  Paul,  Titus  of  Crete.  Foltcarp  was  by  John 
ordained  bishop  of  Smyrna.'  Here,  then,"  the  reader  perceives 
the  triumph,  "  here,  then,  we  have  bishops  ordcimed  in  the  churches 
by  the  apostles  themselves."     Hobart's  Apology,  p.  194. 

There  is  a  small  circumstance  rather  unfavourable  to  this  vouch- 
er.— It  is  not  Jerome's.  Of  that  part  which  relates  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  this  is  expressly  asserted  by  the  episcopal  historian, 
Cave;  and  by  Jerome's  popish  editor.  Vide  Cave,  Script,  eccles. 
hist,  litter,  p.  172,  erf.  Colon.  1720.  Hieron.  0pp.  T.  I.  p.  265. 268. 
erf.  Victorii.  The  articles  James  andPoLYCARP  are  so  precisely  in 
the  same  style  with  the  others,  and  so  diametrically  repugnant  to 
Jerome's  own  doctrine,  that  if,  by  "  bishop,^''  is  meant  such  a 
bishop  as  was  known  in  his  day,  it  is  inconceivable  they  should 
have  proceeded  from  his  pen.  That  they  are  interpolations,  or 
have  been  interpolated,  we  think  there  is  internal  evidence.  At 
least,  when  several  articles  of  the  same  catalogue,  tending  to  the 
same  point,  and  written  in  the  same  strain,  are  confessedly  spurious; 
it  is  hardly  safe  to  rely  upon  the  remainder  as  authentic  testimony. 


246  Review. 

the  credence  of  the  world  to  a  single  assertion  in 
his  Apology.  And  if  similar  productions  were  the 
fashion  of  the  day,  we  have  no  reason  to  wonder 
at  indignant  feeling  and  vehement  language  in 
men  of  a  less  fiery  spirit  than  father  Jerome. 

The  advocates  of  Episcopacy  assert  that  the 
whole  current  of  fact  and  of  opinion  {o\  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  after  Christ,  is  in  their  favour;  that  we 
"  can  produce  no  record  of  a  change,'^^  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,  "  but  are  obhged  to  imagine 
one  in  opposition  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  the 
primitive  fathers." 

We  have  met  them  on  this  ground;  and  have 
"produced"  the  "testimony"  of  one  of  the  "pri- 
mitive fathers,"  directly  against  the  divine  original 
of  the  hierarchy.  This  was  Jerome,  the  most 
learned,  able,  and  distinguished  of  them  all.  He 
tells  us,  in  so  many  words,  not  only  that  the  epis- 
copal pre-eminence  is  without  divine  authority; 
but  that  this  was  a  fact  which  could  not,  with  any 
show  of  reason,  be  disputed ;  as  being  a  fact  well 
ascertained  and  understood.  "  The  Presbyters," 
says  he,  "  know^  that  they  are  subjected  6y  the  cus- 
tom of  the  churchy  to  him  who  is  set  over  them.""^ 

To  elude  the  force  of  Jerome's  deposition,  it  is 
alleged,  among  other  things,  that  his  opinion  is  of 
no  weight  unsupported  by  facts  ;  and  that  his  tes- 
timony, in  the  fourth  century,  concerning  facts  in 
the  first  and  second  centuries,  that  is,  two  or  three 

*  See  page  234. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  247 

hundred  years  before  he  was  born,  is  no  better 
than  an  opinion ;  and  so  he  is  excluded  from  the 
number  of  competent  witnesses.* 

By  this  rule  some  other  witnesses  who  have 
been  summoned  by  our  Episcopal  brethren,  must 
be  cast  without  a  hearing.  Eusebius,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Augustin,  Theodoret,  Epiphanius,  must  all 
be  silenced.  It  is  even  hard  to  see  how  a  sinde 
man  could  be  left,  in  the  whole  catalogue  of  the 
Fathers,  as  competent  to  certify  any  fact  of  which 
he  was  not  an  eye-witness.  To  say  that  they  de- 
rived their  information  of  times  past  from  credible 
tradition,  or  authentic  records,  is  indeed  to  over- 
rule the  principle  of  the  objection.  But  when  this 
door  is  opened  to  admit  the  others,  you  cannot 
prevent  Jerome  from  walking  in.  We  will  allow 
that  EusEBius  had  access  to  "  all  the  necessary 
records  of  the  churches."  But  had  Jerome  no 
records  to  consult  ?  Was  "  the  most  learned  of  all 
the  Christians,"  as  Erasmus  calls  him,  with  Cave's 
approbation,  in  the  habit  of  asserting  historical 
facts  without  proof?  If  he  was,  let  our  opponents 
show  it.  If  he  was  not,  as  his  high  reputation  for 
learning  is  a  pledge,  then  his  testimony  is  to  be 
viewed  as  a  summary  of  inductive  evidence  reach- 
ing back  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  In  his  esti- 
mation, the  facts  of  the  original  parity  of  minis- 
ters, and  of  the  subsequent  elevation  of  prelates 

*  Cyprian,  No.  VII.  Essays,  p.  167.    Hobart's  Apology,  p. 
171—178. 


248  Review. 

by  the  custom  of  the  church,  were  so  undeniable, 
that  he  did  not  think  it  worth  his  while  to  name  a 
document.  The  conduct  of  this  great  man  was 
different  from  that  of  some  very  confident  writers 
whom  w^e  could  mention.  He  sifted  his  authori- 
ties, and  then  brought  forward  his  facts  without 
any  specific  reference,  instead  of  m  king  stiff  as- 
sertions upon  the  credit  of  authors,  w  om  he  never 
read,  nor  even  consulted. 

Jerome,  we  contend,  is  not  only  as  good  a  wit- 
ness in  the  case  before  us,  as  Eusebius  or  any 
other  father,  but  that  he  is  a  far  better  and  more 
unexceptionable  witness  than  either  that  renown- 
ed historian,  or  any  other  prelate  or  friend  of  pre- 
lates. Whatever  Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Epipha- 
nius,  Theodoret,  &c.  testify  in  favour  of  episcopacy, 
must  be  received  with  this  very  important  qualifi- 
cation, that  they  were  themselves  bishops ;  and  were 
testifying  in  favour  of  their  ozm  titles,  emolument, 
grandeur,  and  power.  They  nad  a  very  deep  in- 
terest at  stake.  An  interest  sufficient,  if  not  to 
shake  their  credibility  on  this  point,  yet  greatly  to 
reduce  its  value.  On  the  contrary,  Jerome  had 
nothing  to  gain,  but  much  to  lose.  He  put  his 
interest  and  his  peace  in  jeopardy.  He  had  to 
encounter  the  hostility  of  the  episcopal  order,  and 
of  all  w4io  aspired  to  its  honours.  He  had  to  re- 
sist the  growing  encroachments  of  corruption, 
and  that  under  the  formidable  protection  of  a  civil 
establishment.     He  had,  therefore,  every  possible 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  249 

inducement  to  be  sure  of  his  facts  before  he  attack- 
ed a  set  of  dignitaries  who  were  not,  in  his  age, 
the  most  forbearing  of  mankind.*'  The  conclu- 
sion is,  that  Jerome,  as  we  said,  is  a  more  unex- 
ceptionable witness  than  any  prelate.  To  illus- 
trate— let  us  suppose  a  tribunal  erected  in  England 
to  try  this  question,  Is  Episcopacy  of  divine  institu^ 
Hon  ?  that  no  witnesses  can  be  procured  but  such 
as  were  brought  up  in  the  church  itself;  and  that 
the  judges  were  obhged  to  depend  upon  their  re- 
port of  facts.  The  bishop  of  Durham  is  sworn, 
and  deposes  that  he  has  examined  the  records  of 
the  church,  and  finds  her  to  have  been  episcopal 
from  the  beginning.  A  presbyter  of  the  same 
church,  of  equal  talent,  learning,  and  application, 
is  sworn,  and  deposes  that  he  too  has  examined 
the  records,  and  finds  that,  at  the  beginning,  these 
Christian  ministers  were  of  equal  rank ;  but  that 
by  degrees  inequality  crept  in ;  and  that  the  bi- 
shops have  no  pre-eminence  but  what  the  custom 
of  the  church  has  given  them.  In  general  charac- 
ter, for  integrity,  the  witnesses  are  equal.  They 
flatly  contradict  each  other.  Who,  now,  is  the 
most  credible  witness  }  The  presbyter  runs  the 
hazard  of  almost  every  thing  in  life  by  his  testi- 
mony. The  testimony  of  my  lord  of  Durham  goes 
to  protect  his  own  dignity  in  the  church ;  his  seat 
in  the  house  of  peers ;  and  a  revenue  of  £20,000 
sterling,  per  annum.     A  child  can  decide  who  is 

*  MosHEiM,  Vol.  I.  p.  356. 
Vol.  III.  32 


250  Review, 

most  worthy  of  credit.  Nearly  such  is  the  dif- 
ference betvveen  the  witnesses  for  Episcopacy, 
and  Jerome,  the  witness  for  Presbytery. 

But  we  waive  our  advantage.  We  shall  lay  no 
stress  upon  Jerome's  opinion.  We  shall  cut  off 
from  his  deposition  every  thing  but  what  came 
within  his  personal  observation.  '^The  presby- 
ters," says  he,  '''•know  that  they  are  subject  to  their 
bishop,  by  the  custom  of  the  church."  His  testi- 
mony embraces  a  fact  in  existence  and  obvious  at 
the  time  of  deposition ;  viz.  the  knowledge  which 
the  presbyters  of  his  day  had  of  their  being  subject 
to  their  bishops,  solely  by  the  custom  of  the 
church,  and  not  by  Christ's  appointment.  This 
assertion  is  correct,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not,  then 
Jerome  appealed  to  all  the  world  for  the  truth  of 
what  he  knew,  and  every  body  else  knew,  was  an 
absurd  lie.  No  brass  on  the  face  of  impudence, 
inferiour  to  that  of  the  Due  de  Cadore,  is  brazen 
enough  for  this.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  asser- 
tion be  correct,  how  is  this  knowledge  "  of  the 
presbyters  "  to  be  explained  ?  Where  did  they  get 
it.'^  From  one  of  two  sources.  Either  there  must 
have  been  such  a  previous  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject, as  ended  in  establishing  a  general  conviction 
in  the  minds  of  the  Christian  clergy,  that  prelacy 
is  a  human  invention;  or  which  is  more  probable, 
the  remnants  and  the  recollection  of  the  primitive 
order  still  subsisted  in  considerable  vigour,  not- 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  251 

withstanding  the  rapid  growth  of  the  hierarchy 
since  the  accession  of  Constantine. 

It  is  inconceivable  how  Jerome  should  tell  the 
bishops  to  their  faces,  that  Christ  never  gave  them 
any  superiority  over  the  presbyters;  that  custom 
was  their  only  title  ;  and  that  the  presbyters  were 
perfectly  aware  of  this;  unless  he  w^as  supported 
by  facts  which  they  were  unable  to  contradict. 
Their  silence  under  his  challenges,  is  more  than 
a  presumption  that  they  found  it  wise  to  let  him 
alone.  It  amounts  to  little  short  of  absolute  proof, 
that  there  was  yet  such  a  mass  of  information 
concerning  their  rise,  and  so  much  of  unsubdued 
spirit  in  the  church,  as  rendered  it  dangerous  to 
commit  their  claim  to  the  issue  of  free  inquiry. 
Jerome,  with  the  register  of  antiquity  in  his  hand, 
and  the  train  of  presbyters  at  his  back,  was  too 
potent  an  adversary.  They  could  have  crushed 
the  man ;  but  they  trembled  at  the  truth ;  and  so 
they  sat  quietly  down,  leaving  to  time  and  habit, 
the  confirmation  of  an  authority  which  they  did 
not,  as  yet,  venture  to  derive  from  the  word  of  God. 

In  the  next  age,  when  Jerome  was  dead,  the 
presbyters  cowed ;  and  the  usurpation  of  the  pre- 
lates further  removed  from  the  reach  of  a  reform- 
ing hand ;  Epiphanius  did,  it  is  true,  bluster  at  no 
ordinary  rate  against  the  "heretic"  Aerius;  for 
what  reason  we  shall  shortly  see.  But  it  is  very 
remarkable,  that  in  the  fourth  century,  when  the 
pretensions  of  the  prelates  were  pretty  openly  can- 


252  R 


evtew. 


vassed,  they  spoke  with  great  caution,  and  with 
manifest  reluctance  on  those  parts  of  Scripture 
which  touch  the  point  of  parity.  Let  any  one, 
for  example,  look  at  the  commentaries  of  Chry- 
sosTOM  on  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus. 
Copious  and  fluent  on  other  passages,  he  is  most 
concise  and  embarrassed  on  those  which  relate 
to  ministerial  rank.  Something  he  was  obliged 
to  say:  but  the  plain  words  of  the  apostle  exhibit 
a  picture  so  unlike  the  hierarchy,  that  the  eloquent 
patriarch,  under  the  semblance  of  interpretation, 
throws  in  a  word  or  two  to  blind  the  eyes  of  his 
readers,  and  shuffles  off*  to  something  else ;  but 
never  so  much  as  attempts  to  argue  the  merits  of 
the  question  upon  scriptural  ground.  This  is  the 
reverse  of  Jerome's  practice  in  his  exposition. 
At  this  early  day  we  find  the  advocate  for  parity 
boldly  appealing  to  Scripture;  examining,  com- 
paring, and  reasoning  upon  its  decisions ;  and  the 
prelatical  expounder  skipping  away  from  it  with 
all  possible  haste  and  dexterity.  We  leave  the 
reader  to  draw  his  own  inference. 

The  sentiment  that  Prelates  are  superiour  to 
Presbyters,  not  by  any  divine  appointment,  but 
merely"  by  the  prevalence  of  custom,  extended, 
among  the  Latins  of  the  fourth  century,  much 
further  than  Father  Jerome.  He  himself  tells  us, 
that  the  Presbyters  of  his  day  not  only  thought  so, 
but  kfiew  so ;  and,  assuming  this  as  an  incontro- 
vertible fact,  he  grounds  upon  it  an  admonition  to 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  253 

the  Bishops  to  recollect  their  origin.  "  Let  them 
know,"  says  he,  "  that  they  are  above  the  Pres- 
byters more  by  the  custom  of  the  Church,  than  by 
any  institution  of  Christ."  Considering  him  as  an 
honest  witness,  which  is  all  we  ask,  and  our  Epis- 
copal friends  will  not  deny  it,  he  asserts,  without 
qualification,  that  the  Presbyters,  i.  e.  the  mass  of 
Christian  clergy.,  in  his  time,  were  convinced,  upon 
satisfactory  proof,  that  the  authority  exercised 
over  them  by  the  prelates,  limited,  as  it  then  was, 
and  nothing  hke  what  they  noiv  claim,  had  no 
warrant  whatever,  either  in  the  word  of  God,  or 
even  in  apostolical  tradition !  We  repeat  it ;  the 
great  body  of  the  Christian  clergy,  according  to 
Jerome,  were  aware  of  this  ! !  Here,  since  they  call 
for  facts^i  here  is  a  fact  more  ponderous  than  all 
the  facts  of  Episcopacy  put  together ;  a  fact  which 
there  is  no  frittering  away,  not  even  by  the  force 
of  that  vigorous  criticism  which  inverts  persons 
and  tenses  ;  transmutes  Hebrew  verbs  into  others 
with  which  they  have  no  affinity ;  and  changes  the 
very  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet;  so  that 
a  t  (^zain^)  is  charmed  into  a  r  (nun,)  and,  by  this 
happy  metamorphosis,  the  throat  of  an  ill-con- 
ditioned argument  escapes  from  suffocation  !^ 

The  testimony  of  Jerome  is  corroborated  by  a 
contemporary  writer  of  high  renown,  and  an  un- 
exceptionable witness  in  this  case,  as  being  him- 

*  Churchman'' s  Magazine  for  May  and  June,  1810.   on  Exod. 
xxxiii.  19.  p.  178. 


254  Review, 

self  a  Prelate ;  we  mean  Augustin,  the  celebra- 
ted Bishop  of  Hippo.  In  a  letter  to  Jerome,  he 
has  these  remarkable  words  : — 

"  Although,  according  to  the  names  of  honour 
"  which  the  usage  of  the  Church  has  now  acquired^ 
the  office  of  a  Bishop  is  greater  than  that  of  a 
Presbyter,  yet  in  many  things  Augustin  is  inferiour 
to  Jerome."*  The  sense  of  this  acknowledgment 
is  thus  given  by  a  distinguished  Prelate  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  quoted  by  Ayton : — "  The 
office  of  a  Bishop  is  above  the  office  of  a  Priest, 
not  by  the  authority  of  the  Scripture,  but  after  the 
names  of  honour  which,  through  the  custom  of 
the  Church,  have  now  obtained."t 

The  concession  is  so  clear  and  ample,  that  Car- 
dinal Bellarmine,  with  all  his  integrity,  which  was 
not  a  little,  had  no  other  evasion,  than  to  pretend 
that  these  words  are  not  opposed  to  the  ancient  time 
of  the  Church  ;  but  to  the  time  before  the  Christian 
Church  ;  so  that  the  sense  is^  before  the  times  of  the 
Christian  Church  these  names,  Bishop  and  Presbyter, 
were  not  titles  of  honour,  but  of  office  and  age  ;  but  now 
they  are  names  of  honour  and  dignity. X 

Quibbles  were  scarce  when  a  distressed  cardi- 
nal could  muster  up  nothing  more  plausible.     As 

*  Quauquam  secundum  honorum  vocabula  quae  jam  Ecchsue 
wsMS o6tmMi7,  episcopatus  presbyterio  major  sit;  tameii  in  multis 
rebus  Augustinus  Hierouymo  minor  est.     Ep.  19.  ed  Hieron. 

f  Jewel.  Defence  of  his  apology,  p.  122,  123. 

X  Jameson's  Nazianzeni  querela,  p.  177,  178. 


Essays  on  Episcopacy.  255 

if  names  o^  office  were  not  names  of  dignity  !  As  if 
AuGusTiN,  in  the  very  act  of  paying  a  tribute  of 
profound  respect  to  Jerome,  should  think  of  giving 
him  a  bit  of  grammar  lesson  about  the  words 
'•  Bishop"  and  "  Presbyter !"  Verily,  the  Jesuit 
was  in  sore  affliction ;  and  had  he  uttered  all  his 
soul,  would  have  exclaimed,  like  a  certain  Armi- 
nian  preacher,  when  hard  pressed  by  Scriptural 
reasoning; — "O  argument,  argument!  The  Lord 
rebuke  thee,  argument !" 

Not  much  happier  than  the  cardinal,  nor  much 
less  anxious  for  such  a  rebuke  to  argument  than 
the  Arminian  preacher,  will  be  those  critics  who 
shall  maintain  that  Augustin's  words  regard  only 
the  names  of  office,  without  any  opinion  on  the 
powers  or  rank  of  the  offices  themselves. 

1.  Such  a  construction  makes  the  Bishop  as- 
sert a  direct  falsehood  ;  the  terms  were  in  use  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church;  and, 
therefore,  could  not  have  been  introduced  by  her 
customs. 

2.  If,  by  saying  that  he  was  superiour  to  Jerome 
"  according  to  the  names  of  honour  which  the 
Church  had  obtained  by  usage,"  Augustin  meant 
that  he  enjoyed  only  a  titular  pre-eminence  over 
that  Presbyter,  he  either  insulted  Jerome  by  flout- 
ing at  him  with  a  lie  in  the  shape  of  a  compliment, 
or  else  the  Prelates  in  his  day  had  only  a  nominal., 
and  not  a  real,  power  over  the  Presbyters.     The 


256  Review, 

second  is  contrary  to  fact;  and  the  first  is  too 
absurd  for  even  a  troubled  cardinal. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  alleged  that  Augus- 
tin,  yi  flattery  to  Jerome,  seemed  to  claim  only  a 
titular  precedence,  while  he  was  conscious,  at  the 
same  time,  of  enjoying  an  essential  superiority, 
and  that  by  divine  right,  the  disputant  will  turn 
himself  out  of  the  frying  pan  into  the  fire ;  for  he 
exhibits  the  venerable  father  as  acting  the  knave 
for  the  pleasure  of  proving  himself  to  be  a  fool. 
So  paltry  a  trick  was  not  calculated  to  blow  dust 
into  the  eyes  of  Jerome.  The  distinction  might 
appear  ingenious  to  some  modern  champions  of 
the  hierarchy,  as  it  is  much  in  their  manner ;  but 
could  never  degrade  the  pen  of  the  Bishop  of 
Hippo.  He  is  contrasting  his  official  superiority 
over  Jerome,  with  Jerome's  personal  superiority 
over  himself  The  former  is  the  superiority  of  a 
Bishop  over  a  Presbyter,  which,  he  says,  has 
grown  out  of  the  custom  of  the  Church.  The 
compliment  to  Jerome  consists  in  this — that  while 
the  office  which  sets  him  above  Jerome  was  the 
fruit,  not  of  his  own  deserts,  but  of  the  Church's 
custom,  those  things  which  gave  Jerome  his  supe- 
riority, were  personal  merits.  The  compliment  is 
as  fine,  and  its  form  as  delicate,  as  the  spirit 
which  dictated  it  is  magnanimous. 

But  our  concern  is  with  the  fact  which  it  dis- 
closes. Turn  Augustin's  words  into  a  syllogism, 
and  it  will  stand  thus  : 


Essays  on  Episcopacy*  2b7 

Augustin  is  greater  than  Jerome,  according  to 
the  honours  which  have  been  created  by  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Church. 

But  Augustin  is  greaterthan  Jerome,  as  a  Bishop 
is  greater  than  a  Presbyter. 

Therefore^  a  Bishop  is  greater  than  a  Presbyter 
by  the  custom  of  the  Church. 

Here,  now,  is  Augustin  himself,  a  Bishop  of  no 
common  character,  disclaiming,  unequivocally, 
the  institution  of  Episcopacy  by  divine  right :  For 
he  refers  the  distinction  between  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  not  only  to  a  merely  human  original,  but 
to  an  original  the  least  imperative  ;  to  one  which, 
however  potent  it  becomes  in  the  lapse  of  time,  is 
at  first  too  humble  to  arrogate  authority,  too  fee- 
ble to  excite  alarm,  and  too  noiseless  almost  to 
attract  notice.  He  calls  it  the  creature  of  custom. 
What  shall  we  say  to  this  testimony  of  Augustin  ? 
He  was  under  no  necessity  of  revealing  his  private 
opinion.  He  had  no  temptation  to  sap  the  foun- 
dation of  his  own  edifice;  to  diminish  the  dignity 
of  his  own  order.  All  his  interests  and  his  preju- 
dices lay  in  the  opposite  direction.  Yet  he  speaks 
of  Episcopacy  as  the  child  of  custom,  in  the  most 
frank  and  unreserved  manner;  without  an  apolo- 
gy, without  a  qualification,  without  a  caution.  He 
does  this  in  a  letter  to  Jerome,  the  very  man  to 
whom,  upon  modern  Episcopal  principles,  he  should 
not,  would  not,  and  could  not  have  done  it — the 
very  man  who  had  openly,  and  boldly,  and  repeat- 

Vol.  III.  33 


258  R 


evtew. 


edly  attacked  the  whole  hierarchy;  whose  senti- 
ments, reasonings,  and  proofs,  were  no  secret  to 
others,  and  could  be  none  to  him^the  very  man, 
whose  profound  research,  whose  vigorous  talent, 
and  whose  imposing  name,  rendered  him  the  most 
formidable  adversary  of  the  prelature,  and  threat- 
ened to  sway  more  decisively  the  public  opinion, 
than  a  thousand  inferiour  writers — the  very  man, 
therefore,  whom  it  became  his  duty  to  resist.  Yet 
to  this  man  does  Augustin,  the  Bishop,  write  a 
letter  in  which  he  assigns  to  Episcopacy  the  very 
same  origin  which  Jerome  himself  had  ascribed 
to  it — human  custom  !  ! 

Was  Augustin  ignorant  ?  Was  he  treacherous  ? 
Was  he  cowardly  ?  Was  he  mad  ?  To  write  in  this 
manner  to  Jerome !  and  to  write  it  with  as  much 
composure,  and  sang  froid^  as  he  would  have  al- 
luded to  any  the  most  notorious  fact  in  existence ! 
No.  He  was  not  ignorant,  nor  treacherous,  nor 
cowardly,  nor  mad.  But  he  spoke,  in  the  honesty 
of  his  heart,  what  he  knew  to  be  true ;  and  what 
no  well  advised  man  would  think  of  denying.  Such 
a  concession,  from  such  a  personage,  at  such  a 
time,  under  such  circumstances,  is  conclusive.  It 
shows,  that  in  his  day,  the  Bishops  of  the  Latin 
Church  did  not  dream  of  asserting  their  superi- 
ority to  Presbyters  by  divine  right.  They  had  it 
from  the  custom  of  the  Church,  and  so  long  as 
that  custom  was  undisturbed,  it  was  enough  for 
them.     Among  the  Greeks,  the  blundering,  and 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  259 

hair-brained  Epiphanius  set  up  the  claim  of  a^w^ 
divinum;  but  his  contemporaries  were  discreet 
enough  to  let  him  fight  so  foolish  a  battle  single 
handed. 

To  Jerome  and  Augustin  we  may  add  Pelagius, 
once  their  intimate  friend,  and  afterwards,  on  ac- 
count of  his  heresy,  their  sworn  enemy.  "  He  re- 
stricts all  Church  officers  to  priest  and  deacon  :* 
and  asserts,  thatpr/e^/A^,  without  discrimination  or 
restriction,  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles. ''^'f  He 
has  more  to  the  same  purpose ;  reasoning  as  Je- 
rome reasoned,  from  the  Scriptures ;  and  coming, 
as  did  Sedulius,  Primasius,  and  others,  to  the 
same  result ;  viz.  the  identity  of  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byters.J 

Let  not  the  heresy  of  Pelagius  be  objected  to  us. 
Our  Arminians  will  not  surely  cast  opprobrium 
upon  the  name  of  this,  their  ancient  sire.  For  our 
parts,  we,  with  Augustin,  hold  him  in  detestation, 
as  an  enemy  of  the  grace  of  God.  But  his  heresy 
does  not  vitiate  his  testimony  in  the  present  case. 
Fiercely  as  he  was  attacked  by  Jerome  and  Au- 
gustin, his  opinions  on  the  subject  of  Prelacy 
made  no  article  of  accusation  against  him  as  a 
heretic.  Could  it  have  been  done  with  any  show 
of  reason,  we  may  be  certain  it  would  not  have 
been  spared.     But  the  silence  of  his  Prelatical 

*  In  Rom.  xii.  f  In  1  Cor.  i. 

t  Not  having  access  to  these  writers,  we  quote  from  Jameson^s 
Nazianzen:  p.  176,  177. 


260  Review, 

antagonists,  on  that  head,  is  a  proof  both  of  the 
justness  of  our  foregoing  comments  on  Augus- 
tin's  letter,  and  also  of  the  general  fact,  that  the 
Bishops  were  conscious  of  their  inability  to  meet 
the  question  of  their  order  upon  the  ground  of 
divine  right. 

There  are  two  considerations  which  clothe  our 
argument  with  additional  force. 

T\iQ  first  is,  that  all  able  heretics,  as  Pelagius 
confessedly  was,  in  their  assault  upon  the  Church 
of  God,  direct  their  batteries  against  those  points 
in  which  they  deem  her  to  be  the  least  defensible 
Rightly  judging,  that  it  is  good  policy  to  make  a 
breach,  no  matter  where.  Only  unsettle  the  popu- 
lar mind  as  to  any  one  object  which  it  has  been 
accustomed  to  venerate,  and  the  perversion  of  it 
with  regard  to  many  others,  is  much  facilitated. 
If,  in  this  policy,  Pelagius  and  his  coadjutors  at- 
tacked the  authority  of  the  Bishops,  they  seized 
upon  the  defenceless  spot;  and  the  bishops  were 
beaten  without  a  struggle.  It  is  easy  to  perceive 
what  an  immense  advantage  was  gained  by  the 
heretics  in  their  grand  conflict,  when  their  oppo- 
nents were  put  fairly  in  the  wrong  on  an  incidental 
point,  but  a  point  which,  in  itself,  touched  the  very 
nerves  of  the  public  passions. 

The  5CC0WC/ consideration  is,  that  persons  of  such 
different  conditions,  and  such  hostile  feelings,  could 
never  have  united  in  a  common  opinion  upon  a 
deeply  interesting  topic,  had  not  the  facts  upon 


Essays  on  Episcopacy,  261 

which  their   union   rested  been  perfectly  indis- 
putable. 

Here  is  Presbyter  and  Prelate;  the  monk  of 
Palestine,  and  the  African  Bishop;  orthodoxy 
and  heresy;  Augustin  and  Pelagius;  all  com- 
bining in  one  and  the  same  declaration — that 
Episcopacy  has  no  better  original  than  the  custom 
of  the  Church!  Nothing  but  truth — acknowledged 
truth — truth  which  it  was  vain  to  doubt,  could  have 
brought  these  jarring  materials  into  such  a  har- 
mony; these  discordant  spirits  into  such  a  con- 
currence.— Stronger  evidence  it  is  hardly  possible 
to  obtain ;  and  it  would  be  the  very  pertness  of 
incredulity  to  demand.  Yet  there  are  writers  who 
do  not  blush  to  look  us  in  the  face,  and  assert  that 
the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Fathers  is  univer- 
sally in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  as  having  been  es- 
tablished by  Christ  and  his  apostles  !  !* 

Does  the  sun  shine  }  Is  the  grass  green  }  Are 
stones  hard  }  Another  shove,  and  we  shall  be  in 
Dean  Berkeley's  ideal  world  ! — If  every  thing  sober 
and  solid  is  to  be  thus  outfaced,  there  is  nothing 
for  it,  but  to  abandon  fact  and  demonstration  as 
chimeras,  and  to  take  up  what  was  once  the  ditty 
of  a  fool,  but  is  now  the  best  philosophy, 

*  Essays,  p.  135. 


REVIEW 


HOB  ART'S    APOLOGY 


REVIEW 


''  All  Apology  for  apostolic  order  and  its  advo- 
cates^ occasioned  by  tJie  strictures  and  denun- 
ciations of  the  Christian^ s  Magazine.  In  a 
series  of  lettei^s  addressed  to  the  Rev.  John  M. 
Mason,  D.  Z>.,  editor  of  that  icork.  By  the 
Rev.  John  Henry  Hobart,  an  assistant  minister 
of  Trinity  Church.''^ 

The  purpose  of  these  letters,  as  their  title 
indicates,  is  to  depress  the  credit,  and  resist  the 
influence,  of  the  Christianas  Magazine.  That 
this  work  has  claims  to  the  dislike  of  high 
churchmen,  we  affect  not  to  deny.  One  of 
its  objects,  although  by  no  means  the  primary 
one,  is  to  investigate,  generally,  the  pretensions 
of  the  Episcopal  hierarchy.  As  a  means  for 
accomplishing  this  particular  end,  it  commenced 
a  review  of  that  "  Collection  of  Essays,"  which 
Dr.  Hobart  republished  in  a  single  volume,  with 
comments  of  his  own.  The  reason  of  brimyinor 
liis  "  collection"  to  a  rigorous  test,  was  not  any 
thing  original  or  peculiar  in  the  ''  essays"  them- 
selves, but  a  conviction  that  when  they  should 
be  fairly  disposed  of,  neither  Dr.  H.  nor  Cyprian , 
nor  the  Layman,  nor  Cornelius,  nor  their  friends, 
34=^ 


266  Review. 

would  have  any  more  to  say.  Had  these  writers 
been  shut  up  with  their  Bibles,  their  "  Lexicons," 
and  the  fathers  to  whom  they  are  constantly 
referring,  a  very  small  part  of  their  lucubrations 
would  have  seen  the  light.  Not  they^  but  Arch- 
bishop Potter^  and  other,  the  most  powerful 
advocates  of  the  Episcopal  church,  are  the  rea/ 
authors,  under  the  signatures  of  Cyprian^  the 
Layman^  &c.  The  gentlemen  who  own  these 
papers,  must  put  up  with  the  humbler  praise  of 
amanuenses  to  their  greater  predecessors.  This 
they  know  as  well  as  we,  and  they  know  too, 
what  we  also  know,  that  when  their  arguments 
in  the  aforesaid  collection  shall  be  expended,  the 
stock,  to  use  a  mercantile  phrase,  the  stock  in 
trade  will  be  out. 

Considering,  therefore,  that  in  taking  up  these 
essayists,  the  C.  M.  is  directing  its  fire  not  against 
straggling  detachments  of  her  light  infantry,  but 
against  her  heavy  armed  troops,  against  her 
picked  veterans,  it  was  determined  to  begin 
with  the  hierarchy,  as  they  ougiit  to  do  who 
intend  to  proceed,  and  never  to  stop  till  they 
have  successively  cut  her  columns  in  pieces. 
And  to  this  determination,  however  it  may  be 
relished,  the  C.  M.  will  most  religiously  adhere. 

The  cry  which  is  already  set  up,  sufficiently 
ascertains  the  nature  of  the  first  impression. 
Dr.  H.'s  letters  do  not  surprise  us.  We  were 
aware  that  a  style  of  criticism  more  decisive 
than  has  been  customary  in  our  literary  journals, 


HoharVs  Apology.  267 

would,  of  itself,  be  in  the  eyes  of  many,  an 
offence  never  to  be  expiated.  But  having 
counted  the  cost  before  we  ventured  upon  the 
enterprise  ;  having  met  with  no  opposition 
which  we  did  not  anticipate  ;  and  seeing  no 
cause  to  repent  of  the  steps  which  we  have 
already  taken,  we  shall  continue  to  act  upon 
the  principle  of  reviewing  authors,  as  author's^ 
without  regard  to  their  party  connexions  ;  of 
calling  things  by  their  proper  names ;  and  of 
expressing  ourselves  as  we  think  men  ought  to 
do  who  believe  what  they  say  ;  and  who  believe 
it  to  be  important  as  well  as  true. 

The  letters  before  us  we  do  not  profess  to 
answer.  It  would  be  incompatible  with  the 
limits  of  our  miscellany  ;  and  we  frankly  ac- 
knowledge that,  on  some  accounts,  they  are 
unansicerahle.  No  man  can  refute  rant,  passion, 
or  personal  abuse.  And  if  every  thing  com- 
posed of  these  items  were  expunged,  Dr.  H.'s 
pages  would  probably  be,  both  in  appearance 
and  meaning,  not  very  unlike  the  poem  which 
the  satyrical  critic  amended  by  drawing  his  pen 
through  every  other  line.  Had  the  editor  of  the 
Christian's  Magazine  no  other  concern  with 
these  letters  than  is  created  by  their  effect  on 
him  as  an  individual  and  a  Presbyterian,  he 
would  have  left  them  to  their  own  operation, 
unmolested  and  unnoticed.  But  as  the  conductor 
of  a  periodical  work  to  which  the  public  has 
extended  no  common  share  of  favor,  and  which 


268  ^        Review. 

more  than  Dr.  H.  have  an  interest  in  suppressing, 
he  owes  to  his  own  responsibility,  the  compli- 
ment of  a  few  strictures  on  that  gentleman's 
volume. 

The  first  number  of  the  Christian's  Magazine 
contains  only  preliminary  remarks  on  the  nature 
of  the  Episcopal  pretensions.  The  second 
enters  no  further  into  their  merits,  than  to  state 
and  enforce  the  argument  for  ministerial  parity, 
drawn  from  the  official  titles  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  and  to  show  that  the  contempt  w  bich 
the  advocates  of  the  hierarchy  always  pour  upon 
it,  arises  from  their  perceiving  that  it  is  fatal  to 
their  cause  ;  and,  therefore,  per  fas  jjer  nefas^ 
by  fair  means  or  by  foul,  must  be  set  aside.  Dr. 
H.  not  content  with  endeavoring  to  avert  this 
blow  from  his  church,  has  thought  proper  to 
retread  the  ivhole  of  the  controverted  ground  : 
and,  in  defending  her  from  the  '^denunciations," 
as  he  terms  them,  of  the  Christian's  Magazine, 
to  expatiate,  at  great  length,  upon  several  ma- 
terial topics,  which  it  had  not  so  much  as  touched. 
We  have  no  objection.  But  as  he  has  said 
nothing  relative  to  the  main  question,  which, 
for  substance,  had  not  already  been  said  in  the 
''  collection"  under  review^,  w^e  shall  not  now 
follow  him.  All  that  we  judge  of  sufficient 
moment  shall  be  noticed  as  we  come  up  w^ith 
it,  in  the  regular  course  of  discussion.  We  only 
pledge  ourselves  to  prove,  in  the  proper  place, 
that  with  regard  to  the  essential  facts ^  his  book 


Hoborfs  Apology.  269 

is  a  mass  of  misrepresentations  ;  and  such  mis- 
representations, that  when  they  are  corrected, 
his  argument  perishes.  Neither  shall  we  here 
survey  the  caricatura  which  he  has  drawn  of 
the  Calvinistic  doctrines.  We  reserve  this  for 
a  separate  criticism.  We  only  express  our 
regret  that  he  has  permitted  himself  to  assail 
them  in  that  same  style  of  invective  in  which 
the  Socinians  vent  their  rancor  against  the 
atonement  ;  and  the  infidels  theirs  against 
revelation. 

Our  review,  theref<are,  of  Dr.  H.'s  letters  shall 
be  chiefly  confined  to  his  reflections  on  those 
points  which  are  treated  of  in  the  first  two 
numbers  of  the  Christian's  Magazine.  If  our 
remarks  ramble,  the  reader  will  remember,  that 
Dr.  H.'s  being  a  desultory  writer,  is  no  fault  of 
ours ;  and  that  we  must  take  his  works  as  he 
is  pleased  to  publish  them.  But  crude  and 
rhapsodical  as  his  letters  are,  they  pursue,  with 
undeviating  consistency,  two  objects  which 
continually  force  themselves  upon  the  reader's 
attention.  The  first  is  to  defeat  the  Christian's 
Magazine  by  rendering  the  Editor  •personally 
odious :  and  the  second,  to  overthrow  the  Pres- 
byterians^ by  inspiring  a  detestation  of  Calvinism. 
In  the  prosecution  of  this  design,  assertions  and 
insinuations  are  huddled  together  with  as  little 
respect  to  facts,  as  if  the  principal  business 
w^ere  not  to  write  truth,  but  to  icrite  ;  and  at 
the  same  time  with  an  air  of  as  i2freat  confidence 


270  Review. 

as  if  the  Rev.  writer  really  knew  what  he  is 
saying.  Merely  to  show  how  closely  his  pen  is 
leagued  with  the  genius  of  mistake,  w^e  shall 
adduce  two  or  three  instances,  which  are  in 
themselves  of  little  significance. 

"  All  the  original  productions  in  the  number  of  the  Magazine 
before  me,  with  the  exception  of  the  essay  on  the  Visible  Church, 
point,  with  resistless  evidence,  to  you  as  the  author."    p.  13. 

The  fact  is  quite  otherwise.  But  it  is  not 
uncommon  for  Dr.  H.  and  his  friends  to  find 
''  striking  evidence,"  and  "  resistless  evidence," 
of  things  which  do  not  exist.  However,  as  he 
has  happened  to  guess  right  wi^ong^  he  is  at 
liberty  to  guess  again  in  his  next  octavo. 

"  During  this  period,"  viz.  more  than  two  years,  "  the  plan  of 
the  Christian's  Magazine  has  been  arranging,  materials  collect- 
ing, and  the  matter  preparing  that  was  to  enrich  its  pages. 
There  has  been  full  time  for  chastening  the  indignant  and  pas- 
sionate review  of  the  Essays  on  Episcopacy^  by  the  gentle  dic- 
tates of  judgment  and  charity.  The  intemperate  spirit  which  it 
breathes  is  left  without  even  the  excuse  of  precipitancy  and 
rashness."    p.  13,  14. 

This  paragraph  requires  no  comment.  Its 
undisguised  purpose  is  to  fix  upon  the  editor  the 
imputation  of  some  of  the  worst  passions  that 
can  rankle  in  the  human  heart.  Dr.  H.  has 
forgotten  his  self-respect  in  alleging  a  false  fact 
to  justify  a  "  railing  accusation."  His  account 
of  the  Christian's  Magazine,  so  far  as  we  have 
quoted  it,  is  a  pure  fabrication.  But  it  is  his 
unhappiness  very  often  to  deal  out  fiction,  when 
he  should  be  relating  history. 


HgharVs  Apology.  271 

Dr.  H.  derives  consolation  from  defending  the 
cause  of  Episcopacy  in  the  same  ranks  with  the 

"  Eminent  and  revered  bishops  Hall,  Andrews,  Sanderson, 
Taylor,  Beveridge,  Potter,  Wake,  Wilson,  Horne,  Horse- 
ley;  the  learned  and  pious  divines,  Chillingworth,  Hammond, 
Leslie,  Jones  ;  and  "  a  legion  more,"  illustrious  for  talents,  for 
learning,  and  j9i 6^?/."    p.  17. 

Our  reason  for  quoting  this  paragraph  is,  its 
classing  bishop  Horseley  with  Hall  and  Beve- 
ridge, as  a  nnan  o{  piety.  "  Illustrious  for  talents 
and  learning"  he  certainly  was,  but  ^^ piety ^^  is 
the  last  thing  of  which  his  memory  will  be 
accused  by  any  one  acquainted  with  public 
character  in  Britain.  On  this  subject  we  shall 
not  tell  all  we  know^  ;  but  hold  ourselves 
responsible  for  the  truth  of  our  assertion,  which 
we  should  very  reluctantly  verify  by  specifying 
authentic  particulars.  We  have  no  pleasure  in 
stating  such  a  fact  at  all ;  but  mention  it  only 
as  a  strong  instance  of  Dr.  H.'s  haste  and  inac- 
curacy ;  as  a  proof  that  his  readers  are  not  safe 
in  relying  upon  his  representations.  We  do 
not  say  nor  insinuate  that  they  are  loilfully 
inaccurate  ;  but  that  he  is  incessantly  falling 
into  error  in  matters  of  fact.  If  an  inquirer  be 
misled,  it  is  the  same  to  him  whether  his  guide 
deceive  him  intentionally,  carelessly,  or  igno- 
rantly.  Dr.  H.  has  placed  himself  irretrievably 
in  the  predicament  of  those  w^'iters  who  ''  know 
a  little,  suppose  much,  and  so  jump  to  a  conclu- 
sion"— which  conclusion  is  generally  wrong. 

Dr.  H.  whether  through  oversight  or  design, 


272  Bevieio. 

we  undertake  not  to  decide,  has  coujJed  his 
subject  as  much  as  possible  with  personal  feel- 
ing. By  introducing  the  names  of  denominations 
and  of  individuals  into  the  Aery  heart  of  the 
argument  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  them 
almost  inseparable,  he  has  reduced  us  to  the 
dilemma  of  either  saying  nothing,  and  then  our 
silence  would  be  interpreted  as  it  should  suit 
the  interpreter  ;  or  of  exposing  ourselves  to  the 
charge  of  personal  rudeness.  The  C.  M.  scru- 
pulously avoided  all  such  references.  It  was 
not  from  want  of  power,  but  from  a  conviction 
of  their  impropriety,  that  it  did  not  adopt  them, 
with  galling  effect,  on  certain  individuals  who 
shall  still  be  nameless.  If  therefore  any  thing 
that  may  be  thought  unceremonious  shall  drop 
from  our  pen,  the  displeased  reader  must  hold 
Dr.  H.  accountable. 

After  a  very  grotesque,  and,  as  we  think, 
unseemly,  parody  on  the  official  phraseology  of 
the  President  of  tlie  United  States,  and  a  shrewd 
hint  that /<2ar  was  a  principal  cause  of  delaying 
the  appearance  of  the  C.  M.  Dr.  H.  thus  explains 
the  commencement  of  the  discussions  which  are 
now  taking  place. 

"  A  hero,  however,  no  less  renowned  than  the  Rev.  Dr.  Linn, 
not  taught  wisdom  by  the  salutary  lessons  which  he  had  received 
some  years  ago  from  the  "Right  Rev.  Prelate  of  New  York,"  in 
a  theological  contest,  felt  all  the  vigor  and  ardor  of  his  youthful 
days  renewed.  Indignant  at  this  delay,  and  spurning  the 
restraints  of  his  compeers,  he  rushed  forward  to  spread  dismay 
among  the  Episcopalians,  and,  single-handed,  cover  ihem  with 


Hoharfs  Apology.  273 

defeat.  In  his  numbers  styled  "  Miscellanies,"  published  in  the 
Albany  Centinel,  he  attacked  the  principles  of  the  Episcopalians. 
He  was  instantly  met — met,  and  vanquished  by  striplings  inferior 
to  this  venerable  giant  in  literature  and  theology,  in  every  thing 
but  the  goodness  of  their  cause,  and  judgment  in  defending  it." 
p.  9,  10. 

The  custom  of  leaping  at  Rhodes,*  we  per- 
ceive is  still  in  fashion.  It  will  be  time  enough 
for  Dr.  H.  to  boast  of  his  stripling  friends  having 
''  vanquished"  Dr.  L.  when  the  fact  is  ascer- 
tained. The  testimony  in  evidence  is  not  yet 
closed.  The  courteous  manner  of  using  Dr.  Linn, 
as  a  foil  not  only  to  the  ''  Right  Rev.  Prelate," 
but  to  the  ''  striplings"  who  are  his  equals  in 
''judgment,"  is  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  a  system 
very  prevalent  among  the  sons  of  the  hierarchy 
— the  system  of  praising  each  other. 

In  this  instance,  however,  the  panegyrist  has 
overshot  his  mark.  Of  all  the  human  faculties 
judgment  arrives  the  last  at  maturity ;  for  it 
depends  the  most  upon  experience,  and  is,  for 
that  reason,  the  least  cultivated  in  youth  of  the 
very  best  natural  endowments.  Had  ice  put  an 
Episcopal  gentleman  of  acknowledged  abilities 
and  literature,  on  a  level  with  any  of  our  own 
'' striplingvs"  in  the  article  of  "judgment,"  we 
could  hardly  have  hoped  to  escape  with  a  rebuke 
for  being  merely  indecorous.  We  refer  obser- 
vations like  these  to  Dr.  H.'s  less  precipitate 
moments.  In  the  mean  time,  as  he  has  intro- 
duced his  diocesan  to  our  notice,  in  a  manner 

*  Vide  Esop's  Fables,  F.  14.  ed.  Oxon.    1718. 


274  Review. 

which  cannot  but  be  flattering  to  his  connexions, 
we  shall  embrace  this  occasion  of  presenting  to 
our  readers  a  sample  of  that  "  salutary"  instruc- 
tion which  he  bestowed,  without  effect,  on  Dr. 
Linn. 

It  was  not  our  wish  to  say  a  word  which 
might  have  an  unfriendly  aspect  toward  a  pre- 
late who  is  deservedly  esteemed  in  society,  and 
is  dis^tinguished  for  amiable  manners,  and  polite 
literature.  But  as  Dr.  H.  has  employed  his 
pencil  in  historical  painting,  we  cannot  refuse 
to  look  at  his  picture,  and  to  supply  what  is 
lacking  in  its  explanation.  Yonder,  in  the  back 
ground,  lies  a  hapless  wight;  his  head  uncovered, 
his  weapons  shivered,  his  body  transfixed.  This, 
the  painter  informs  us,  is  Dr.  Linn,  the  Presby- 
terian, who  has  just  reaped  the  reward  of  his 
folly  in  not  profiting  by  the  ''  salutary  lessons 
which  he  had  received  some  years  ago  from  the 
Right  Rev.  Prelate  of  New  York."  Alas,  my 
brother  !  More  conspicuous  on  the  canvas  are 
two  figures  in  an  erect  attitude  ;  their  backs  are 
toward  the  prostrate  presbyter,  and  their  ruddy 
countenances  express  the  triumph  of  conquerors. 
These,  the  painter  tells  us,  are  the  ''  striplings," 
who  have  just  avenged  their  Alma  Mater,  the 
hierarchy,  by  making  the  wickied  presbyter 
aforesaid,  who  had  breathed  upon  her  good 
name,  to  "  bite  the  dust." — Here, 

Above  the  rest 
In  shape  and  gesture  proudly  eminent, 


Hoharfs  Apology.  275 

is  portrayed  a  personage  who,  the  painter  lets 
us  know,  is  the  prehxte  ah-eady  mentioned.  We 
were  somewhat  anxious  to  learn  the  particulars 
of  his  prowess  ;  but  the  painter  stopped  short, 
and  we  were  obliged  to  repair  to  other  sources 
of  information.  Having,  in  common  with  other 
people,  a  little  memory,  we  recollected  some- 
thing very  like  a  "  gigantic"  feat,  in  the  contest 
to  which  Dr.  H.  alludes  in  the  extract  quoted 
above.  We  turned  to  the  pamphlets  of  the  day, 
and  in  one  of  them  met  with  the  following 
sentences. 

"  There  is  a  general  propensity  in  men  to 
form  gods  unto  themselves ;  in  contemplating  the 
character  of  the  Deity,  to  dwell  chiefly  on  those 
attributes  which  are  most  congenial  to  the 
prevailing  dispositions  of  their  own  hearts.  The 
mild,  the  meek,  the  merciful,  love  to  describe 
God  as  a  being  whose  tender  mercies  are  over  all 
his  icorks  ;  the  passionate,  the  arrogant,  the 
tyrannical,  take  delight  in  speaking  of  him  as 
an  almighty  sovereign,  who  icorketh  all  tlihigs 
according  to  the  purpose  of  his  oion  ivill,  and 
whose  glory  is  as  much  displayed  in  the  perdi- 
tion of  sinners,  as  it  is  in  the  salvation  of  the 
righteous."^^ 

The  reader  will  observe  that  the  words  in 

*  See  The  doctrine  of  haptismal  regeneration  vindicated  against  the 
objections  of  Dr.  Linn,and  others  :  to  which  is  added,  Dr.  JVaterland's 
discourse  on  the  same  subject.  By  Benjamin  JMoore,  D.  D.  New 
York,  Printed  by  Hugh  Gaine,  at  ihc  Bible,  in  Hanover-Square, 
1793.  p.  20. 


276  Review. 

Italics  are  scriptural  expressions.  The  last 
occurs  in  Eph.  i.  11  :  "  In  whom  also  we  have 
obtained  an  inheritance,  being  predestinated 
according  to  the  purpose  of  him  iclio  worketh 
all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  oivn  luill.^^ 

Dr.  Moore  says,  that  they  are  the  "passionate, 
the  arrogant,  and  the  tyrannical,"  who  take 
delight  in  such  a  representation  of  God.  Yet 
this  is  the  representation  given  of  him  by  the 
inspired  apostle;  and  that,  when  he  is  celebra- 
ting in  the  fulness  of  gratitude,  of  tenderness, 
and  of  love,  the  'praise  of  the  glory  of  God's  grace 
loherein  he  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved, 
V.  6. 

This  is  a  representation  on  which  the  Scrip- 
tures dwell  as  much  as  upon  any  other.  Nor 
is  there  scarcely  either  a  prophet  or  an  apostle, 
but  will  hav  e,  by  Dr.  Moore's  rule,  the  brand  of 
passion,  and  arrogance,  and  tyranny,  imprinted 
on  him.  Will  he  maintain  that  there  is  any 
attribute  of  God,  wiiich  "  the  mild,  tlie  meek, 
the  merciful,"  do  not  delight  to  contemplate  7 
Then  he  will  maintain  that  tliere  are  attributes 
of  God  at  variance  with  mildness,  and  meekness, 
and  mercy.  Then,  if  we  rejoice  because  the 
Lord  reigneth — if  we  pray  that  his  will  may  be 
done  in  earthy  as  it  is  done  in  heaven^  where  it 
is  never  disputed,  and  must  be  absolute — if  we 
join  with  the  nations  of  the  saved — with  the  holy 
apostles  and  projjhets — with  the  very  heaven^  in 
rejoicing  at  the  execution  of  the  divine  judg- 


Hoharfs  Apology.  277 

ments,^^  we  must  be  turned  over  among  the 
'' passionate,  the  arrogant,  the  tyrannical." 

It  would  be  w^ell  if  this  stroke  of  Dr.  M. 
struck  no  deeper  :  but  since  the  passage  which 
he  has  pointed  out  as  congenial  with  the 
prevailing  dispositions  of  the  ''  passionate,  the 
arrogant,  the  tyrannical,"  together  with  innu- 
merable passages  of  the  same  sort,  were  dic- 
tated by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  implication  is  very 
strong,  that  there  are  some  of  Jehovah's  per- 
fections in  which  he  himself  does  not  delight ; 
or  else  he,  too,  must  be  smitten  with  the  charge 
of  passion,  and  arrogance,  and  tyranny  ! 

We  make  these? remarks  w^ith  more  pain  than 
we  wish  our  opponents  ever  to  suffer.  Dr.  H. 
has  compelled  us. 

We  should  extend  our  remarks  to  an  unrea- 
sonable length,  were  w^e  to  rectify  all  the  mis- 
takes and  improprieties  of  these  Letters.  Near- 
ly every  page  abounds  with  materials  for  com- 
ments which  no  moderation  of  manner  could 
render  much  more  acceptable  to  the  Rev.  au- 
thor, than  the  original  review  w^hich  has  thrown 
his  temper  so  entirely  off  its  balance.  A  man 
W'ho  whites  in  great  haste,  and  under  the  goad- 
ings  of  irritation,  easily  fills  up  a  volume,  be- 
cause he  has  neither  time  nor  inclination  to  be 


*  Rev.  xviii.  20.  xix.  1 — 7.  The  precise  view  under  which  the 
niiliennial  church  is  represented  as  delighting  in  God.  is  that  of  an 
"  Ahnighty  sovereign."  Alleluia !  for  the  Lord  Goi>  Omnipotent 
reiarneth.     v.  6. 


278  RevieiD. 

nice  in  the  selection  of  its  contents.  This,  in- 
deed, gives  him  no  claim  to  the  indulgence  of 
criticism  ;  but  as  it  marks  his  literary  offspring 
for  early  decease,  it  supersedes  a  vast  amount 
of  ungrateful  labour;  and  as  it  bespeaks  more 
need  of  medicine  than  of  chastisement,  it  rather 
pleads  for  compassion,  than  rouses  indignation. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  troubling  ourselves  with 
copious  extracts  from  Dr.  H.'s  declamations,  we 
shall  remit  them,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  reader.  We  are  entirely  willing 
that  he  should  pronounce  sentence,  after  com- 
paring Dr.  H.'s  "Apology"  w  ith  the  "Christian's 
Magazine,"  on  points  which  are  discussed-  in 
both.  We  request,  however,  a  single  favour ; 
that  he  will  ask  himself,  on  perusing  the  Maga- 
zine, whether  he  can  or  cannot  form  a  correct 
idea  of  the  nature  and  strength  of  the  Episco- 
pal argument?  and  again,  on  perusing  the  Apol- 
ogy, whether  he  can  or  cannot  form  a  correct 
idea  of  the  nature  and  strength  of  the  argument 
in  the  Magazine  ?  This  will  help  him  to  deter- 
mine on  which  side  the  fault  of  misrepresenta- 
tion lies. 

In  our  first  number  we  had  observed,  that  the 
non~Episcopalians  will  probably  view  Dr.  H.'s 
apology  for  himself,  "as  a  stratagem,  and  not  a 
very  deep  one,  to  avoid  the  unpopularity  of  ap- 
pearing as  the  aggressor."  By  this  remark, 
and  a  page  or  two  preceding  it,  he  is  so  extreme- 
ly nettled  as  to  enter  upon  a  formal  vindication, 


Hoharfs  Apology.  279 

in  which  he  endeavours  to  prove  that  hostilities 
were  commenced  on  the  other  side.  If  the  re- 
crimination has  given  him  any  relief,  we  do  not 
wish,  and  shall  not  attempt,  to  interrupt  his  re- 
pose. Let  him  have  it  in  his  own  way.  It  is 
really  so  trifling  a  part  of  the  discussion,  that 
we  shall  waste  very  little  time  or  paper  upon  it. 
However,  we  wonder  that  while  he  was  ahout 
it,  the  fervent  apologist  did  not  carry  the  chro- 
nology of  the  warfare  further  hack,  and  date  it 
from  presbyter  Jerome^  in  the  fourth  century. 
This  would  have  been  doing  business  to  some 
purpose.  For  our  part,  had  the  Episcopal  di- 
vines and  writers  contented  themselves  with 
declaring  their  predilection  for  their  own  sys- 
tem, as  most  agreeable  to  Scripture  and  anti- 
quity ;  had  they  not  boasted  of  their  pre-emi- 
nence in  such  a  manner  as  to  throw  over  the 
line  of  covenanted  mercy,  all  the  non-Episcopal 
churches  under  heaven  ;  we  should  not  have 
embarked  in  this  controversy.  They  might 
have  said  and  sung,  "  It  is  evident  unto  all  men 
diligently  reading  holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors,  that  from  the  apostles'  time,  there  have 
been  three  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  church, 
bishops,  priests  and  deacons."^  as  often,  as  loud, 
and  as  long  as  they  thought  fit.  This  never 
provoked  the   contest.     But   when   they   pro- 

*  Preface  to  the  book  of  consecrating  and  ordering  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons,  as  quoted  in  Detector^  No  11.  Essays  on  Episcopacy, 
p. 105. 


280  Review. 

ceeded  to  shut  out  from  covenanted  mercy,  all 
churches  which  do  not  receive  their  "bishops, 
priests  and  deacons,"  the  case  was  altered.  Pa- 
tience ceased  to  be  a  virtue :  Passiveness  be- 
came a  crime.  We  were  summoned  to  the  de- 
fence, not  merely  of  our  external  order,  but  of 
that  "liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us 
free ;"  of  that  "  hope  by  the  w^hich  we  draw 
nigh  unto  God."  And,  "  having  put  our  hand 
to  the  plow,"  it  is  our  unalterable  purpose,  as 
his  grace  sliall  enable  us,  not  "  to  look  back." 

We  take  our  final  leave  of  this  question,  with 
a  word  or  two  on  the  justification  wiiich  Dr.  H. 
and  his  friends  have  set  up.  "  My  single  ob- 
ject," says  he,  "  w^as  the  instruction  of  Episco- 
palians."* His  works  are  declared  by  the  Lay- 
man to  be  "  addressed  to  Episcopalians  alone.'\ 
Is  it  so  ?  Where  then  w^as  their  vaunted  chari- 
ty^ in  trying  to  conceal  from  others,  or  not 
trying  to  extend  to  them,  the  knowledge  of 
truth  upon  the  admission  or  rejection  of  which  ^ 
depends  admission  to,  or  exclusion  from,  God's 
covenanted  mercy  ?  Is  it  thus  that  Charity  be- 
haves towards  the  souls  of  men  '? 

But  how  is  all  this  to  be  reconciled  with  what 
these  same  gentlemen  tell  us,  when  they  are 
occupied  with  another  view  of  their  subject? 
For  brevity's  sake,  w^e  quote  the  Layman  only, 
as  he  is  particularly  pointed,  and  as  his  papers 

*  Apology,  p.  36.  *  t  No.  III.  Coll.  p.  32. 


Hobarfs  Apology.  281 

have  been  republished,  with  unqualified  appro- 
bation, by  Dr.  H.  himself. 

"  Let  it  be  recollected  that  error  is  venial  only  in  proportion 
as  it  is  involuntary.  How,  then,  shall  that  man  excuse  himself, 
who,  having  been  warned  of  the  defect  of  the  ministry  at  whose 
hands  he  receives  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  neglects,  never- 
theless, to  give  attention  to  the  subject,  and  to  examine  dispas- 
sionately, those  works  which  prove  the  necessity  of  union  with 
that  church,  the  validity  of  whose  ministrations  even  its  most  in- 
veterate opponents  are  obliged  to  acknowledge."* 

On  the  Layman's  principles,  such  a  case  can- 
not exist.  For  in  the  very  next  page,  he  main- 
tains, that  "  those  who  have  departed  from 
Episcopacy,  have  no  spiritual  authority  what- 
ever; have  no  ministers;  and  no  ordinances." 
How  we  are  to  ^^  receive  the  ordinajices  of  the  gos- 
pel,^^  in  churches  which  have  "  no  ministers,  and 
710  ordinances j^^  exceeds  our  comprehension. 

This  eji  passant.  We  are  reduced,  it  seems, 
to  a  hard  predicament.  In  the  first  place,  we 
have  nothing  to  do  with  works  which  prove  the 
necessity  of  union  with  the  Episcopal  church, 
such  as  those  published  by  Dr.  H. ;  because 
they  are  "addressed  to  Episcopalians  «/one;" 
and,  in  the  next  place,  we  are  without  excuse 
for  neglecting  to  examine  them.  We  are 
WARNED,  it  is  said,  of  the  defect  of  our  min- 
istry. Warned  !  By  whom  ?  Not  by  our  own 
ministry.  They  perceive  not  the  fatal  defect. 
Not  by  Dr.  H.'s  works  ;  they  w^ere  intended  for 
none  but  Episcopalians !  and  yet  we  are  to  be 

*  Laymauy  No.  IX,  Collect,  p.  158, 

34 


282  Revieio. 

without  excuse !  another  sample  of  charity^  we 
suppose.  Very  possibly,  however,  this  good 
office  is  performed  by  the  advices  and  admoni- 
tions of  the  Layman.  We  are  much  his  debtors ; 
especially  as  in  not  yielding  to  his  voice,  we  en- 
counter the  hazard  of  forfeiting,  by  voluntary 
error,  all  claim  upon  mercy,  covenanted  or 
uncovenanted.  So  that  we,  miserable  sinners 
that  we  are,  ice  can  hardly  escape  from  the  al- 
ternative of  "  Episcopacy  or  perdition,"  with 
all  the  charity  of  Dr.  H.  to  help  us.  Of  this 
enough. 

Our  fiery  apologist  represents  the  strictures 
of  the  C.  M.  as  "  an  unjust,  ungenerous,  and  cru- 
el appeal  to  prejudice  and  passion" — an  appeal 
^'  precluding  all  candid  and  dispassionate  inqui- 
ry." Nay,  such  an  appeal  "  as  even  an  honest 
politicaUdeclaimer,  in  the  mad  fervour  of  party 
zeal,  would  not  use  without  a  blush. "^  The 
sacredness  of  ^conscience,  and  the  decorum  of 
religion  all  apart,  as  unworthy  of  its  regard,  the 
C.  M.  breathes  a  spirit,  and  has  employed  arts, 
which  befit  none  but  a  jjolitical  knave  I  Very 
decent  and  modest,  we  own.  A  pure,  untainted 
ebullition  of  "  that  meekness  of  celestial  wis- 
dom" in  which  the  Rev.  Apologist  has  promised 
to  defend  the  ^'  apostolic  church  !  "t  And  then, 
by  way  of  exhibiting  to  the  world  how  far  he  is 
himself  removed  from  every  thing  like  "  preju- 
dice and  passion,"  he  turns  advocate-general  of 

*  A-pology^  p.  13,  t  Ihid  p.  15, 


HobarVs  Apology.  283 

all  that  the  C.  M.  had  censured,  not  forgetting 
JV.  G.  Dufief!  He  has  tried  to  impress  on  in- 
dividuals, mentioned  by  name,  the  opinion  that 
we  have  personally  insulted  them.  From  that 
part  of  Dr.  Nott's  address,  which  recommends 
the  character  of  Christ  as  the  perfect  model  of 
imitation,  he  has  garbled  a  passage;  leaving 
out  the  very  icords  on  ichich  ive  laid  the  whole 
stress  of  our  criticism ;  and  a  part  which  not 
only  we  never  condemned,  but  which  it  is  im- 
possible we  should  condemn,  he  has  held  up 
to  the  reader's  eye,  as  furnishing  us  with  an 
occasion  of  painting  the  Rev.  President  of  Union 
College,  as  a  "perjured  hypocrite!"^  He  has 
done  more.  The  introduction  to  the  C.  M. 
draws  a  rapid  outline  of  evils  which  infest  the 
church  of  God.  The  characteristics  which  it 
has  sketched,  are  general.  Originals  we  un- 
doubtedly had  in  view  ;  but  we  made  no  appli- 
cations. Dr.  H.  has  taken  this  work  off  our 
hands,  and  off  the  hands  of  the  reader  too.  He 
sallies  forth  with  his  basket  of  caps,  and  in  the 
name  of  the  editor  of  the  Christian's  Magazine, 
puts  one  on  the  head  of  almost  every  denomi- 
nation he  meets.  It  is  proper,  however,  to 
state  that  the  labels,  "  Quakers,"  ''  Methodists," 
''  Episcopalians,"  cfec,  were  aflSxedto  our  name- 
less caps,  on  the  responsibility  of  the  Apologist. 
He  has  acquitted  himself  in  this  volunteered  ser- 
vice, with  a  judgment  perfectly  parallel  to  his 

*  Apology,  p.  23,  24. 


284  jRevieiv. 

accuracy  in  matters  of  historical  fact.  We  are 
under  no  obligation  to  correct  his  blunders. 
But  as  he  ought  to  be  well  acquainted  with 
his  ow^n  church,  and  perceives  her  to  be  describ- 
ed by  those  who,  "  like  the  self-justifiers  of  old, 
*  tithe  mint,  and  anise,  and  cummin,'  little  con- 
cerned about  either  receiving  Christ  Jesus  the 
Lord,  or  walking  in  him,  provided  they  be  ex- 
act in  their  routine  of  ceremonies  ;"^  we  have 
no  sort  of  objection  to  her  w^earing  the  cap 
w^hich  her  good  and  dutiful  son  has  appropri- 
ated to  her  use. 

Commonly  in  such  cases,  the  affront  lies  not 
in  the  description,  but  in  the  application. — 
Should  a  hearer  of  Dr.  H.'s  run  away  with  a 
sermon  of  his  against  various  sins,  and  say  to 
A,  '^  this  was  for  you ;"  to  B,  "  this  w^as  cer- 
tainly for  you;"  to  C,  ''  here  is  something  which 
was  not  intended  for  you,  but  the  next  sentence 
can  mean  nobody  else ;"  and  should  do  this 
with  a  design  of  persuading  them  that  he  meant 
to  excite  the  hatred  of  their  neighbours  against 
them,  who  would  be  the  firebrand?  Dr.  H.  or 
his  officious  interpreter  ?  Just  so  has  he  served 
us.  Not  we,  then,  but  Dr.  H.  has  abused  the 
surrounding  denominations.  The  inflammatory 
suggestions  are  his  own.  And,  in  the  very  act 
of  making  them,  he  inveighs  against  us  for  "ap- 
pealing to  prejudice  and  passion !" 

Another  source  of  tribulation  to  this  "  meek" 

*  Jlpology^^.  18. 


Hobarfs  Apology.  285 

apologist,  is  in  the  pride,  the  bitterness,  the  inn- 
periousness,  the  virulence,  the  despotism,  the 
arrogance,  &c.  &c.  &c.  of  the  C.  M.*  Unhap- 
py gentleman !  Denunciations,  and  thunder, 
and  bolts,  and  blastings,  and  chains,  and  inqui- 
sitions, and  racks,  are  constantly  present  to  his 
imagination,  and  fill  it  with  a  wildness  which, 
like  that  of  Sir  William  Draper,  has  the  "mel- 
ancholy madness  of  poetry,  without  the  inspi- 
ration."! 

Being,  therefore,  greatly  scandalized  at  our 
insolence  aforesaid,  Dr.  H.  not  only  bestows 
upon  us  his  kind  rebukes  by  the  dozen  and  the 
score,  but  offers  himself  as  a  contrast  which 
must  put  us  to  shame.  ''Sweet  as  summer,'' 
and  "  serene  as  light,"  his  silvered  sentences, 
and  his  Attic  wit,  shall  flow  unimbittered  with 
resentment,  unstained  with  injuriousness,  un- 
ruffled by  the  breath  of  indecorum.  A  noble 
resolution,  and  nobly  kept.  We  give  both  text 
and  comment ;  both  promise  and  fulfilment,  in 
his  own  words  : 

TEXT. 

"  My  own  determination  is  unalterably  formed  in  that  firm 
language  which  conscious  truth  inspires,  but  in  that  ''meekness 
of  celestial  uisdom''  which  the  gospel  enjoins,  to  defend  the 
apostolic  church,  at  whose  altar  I  minister,  against  every  wea- 
pon that  is  formed  against  her." 

COMMENT. 

"Presumptuous  men  !"  (meaning  himself,  the  Layman,  and 
Cyprian,)  "luckless  was  the  hour  when  ye  provoked  the  wrath  of 

*  Apology,  p.  7,  18-25,  33,  25-30, 240.  f  Junius,  Let.  VII. 

X  -Apology,  T^.  15. 


286  Review. 

the  learned  Dr.  M.,  that  paragon  of  talents,  who,  glowing  with 
intuitive  knowledge,  can  exhaust  any  subject  without  reading  a 
page,  or  consulting  any  author. 

"  But,  Sir,  (I  am  almost  afraid  to  expostulate  with  you,  lest  I 
should  provoke  your  heavier  ven^-eance,)  it  was  not  quite /air,  it 
was  not  quite  generoics  and  manly,  (modesty  I  know  is  an  un- 
fashionable virtue,)  to  overwhelm  by  your  dazzling  talents,  three 
humble  individuals,  who  have  reached  only  the  first  steps  of  the 
temple  of  science,  whose  vestibule  you  have  long  since  passed, 
whose  sacred  recesses  you  have  already  explored.  At  our  period 
of  life,  eight  or  ten  years  may  make  an  important  difference  in 
the  sum  of  attainments.  And,  through  the  good  providence  of 
God,  we  can  look  forward  to  at  least  as  many  years  before  we 
shall  equal  the  present  age  of  our  giant  censor.  When  as  many 
suns  have  rolled  over  our  heads  as  have  shed  their  collected  glo- 
ries upon  him,  perhaps,  (alas !  is  not  the  hope  presumptuous  ?) — 
perhaps,  (despair  almost  arrests  my  pen,) — perhaps  we  may 
equal  in  erudition,  the  profoundly  learned  Dr.  M.  At  present, 
we  lay  claim  to  sufficient  learning  and  talent  to  defend  the  Epis- 
copal Church  against  any  adversary.  Even  the  sneers,  and 
frowns,  and  haughty  airs  of  the  Editor  of  the  Christian's  Maga- 
zine, we  can  summon  resolution  to  smile  at,  and  to  disregard."* 

Upon  the  civility  of  this  passage,  we  say  no- 
thing. It  will  never  subject  the  writer  to  any 
raillery  for  being  unfashionable.  But  to  hope 
that  it  should  be  read  without  relaxed  muscles, 
would  be  an  unconscionable  demand  upon  the 
gravity  of  Cato  himself  After  the  high  ground 
which  these  warriors  had  taken,  their  military 
attitude,  their  formidable  train  of  bishops  and 
fathers,  and  their  strong  defiance  to  the  Pres- 
byterian camp,  to  scream  out  so  piteously  at 
the  very  first  fire,  and  tell  all  the  world  that  they 
are  now  raw  lads,  but  with  the   privilege  of 

*  .Apology,  ip.  240,  241. 


Hoharfs  Apology.  287 

learning  their  tactics  for  eight  or  ten  years^  they 
will  give  a  good  account  of  their  foe,  is  divert- 
ing enough.  We  had  supposed  that  when  we 
died  of  old  age,  it  would  be  time  for  these  gen- 
tlemen to  make  their  wills.  .But  we  must  own 
that  Dr.  H.  has  displayed  so  much  of  the  boy, 
as  to  leave  us  at  a  loss  on  that  weighty  matter. 
"  Pray,  Dr.,"  said  Lady  W.  to  the  late  principal 
Robertson,  as  she  was  flirting  in  a  large  com- 
pany, with  all  the  airs  and  petulancies  of  a  girl- 
ish coquette,  "  Pray,  Dr.,  how  old  do  you  think 
I  am  ?"  '^  Really,  Madam,"  replied  the  sage, ''  I 
cannot  pretend  to  know;  but  I  should  suppose 
that  your  Ladyship  has  not  arrived  at  the  years 
of  discretion."  Judging  from,  the  morceau  which 
we  have  selected,  and  which  is  by  no  means 
alone  in  Dr.  H.'s  writings,  we  should  conclude 
that  he  is  somewhere  in  his  teens.  Whether  he 
shall  ever  get  out  of  them  or  not,  the  future 
must  reveal.     We  have  done  with  this  also. 

The  Christian's  Magazine,  in  consequence, 
as  we  thought,  of  sufficient  evidence  from  their 
own  publications,  had  charged  Dr.  Hobart  and 
some  of  his  brethren,  with  teaching  that  there 
is  no  Christian  ministry  but  the  Episcopal  min- 
istry ;  no  church  of  Christ  but  the  Episcopal 
church  ;  and  that  all  without  her  pale  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  covenanted  mercies  of  God.* 

Such  tenets,  as  we  have  several  times  ob- 
served, although  mollified  with  a  pretty  large 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  Vol.  I.  p.  93-97. 


288  Feview. 

allowance  for  "involuntary  and  unavoidable 
ignorance  or  error,"  we  felt  it  our  duty  to  resist, 
not  only  with  firmness,  but  with  a  portion  of 
that  indignant  spirit  which  we  then  thought, 
and  still  think,  the  outrage  both  justified  and 
required.  We  do  not  mean  an  outrage  upon 
the  opinions,  the  partialities,  the  vanity,  or  the 
wishes,  of  other  denominations.  Uncharitable- 
ness  and  bigotry,  against  which  the  milh'on  ex- 
claim with  so  much  noise  and  so  little  intelli- 
gence, made  no  part  of  our  accusation  ;  and 
shall  make  none  hereafter.  Their  relative 
weight  in  the  scale  of  judgment,  is  lighter  than 
a  feather.  The  outrage  wdiich  we  deemed  it 
no  meekness  to  bear,  nor  any  insolence  to  chas- 
tise, was  committed,  at  least  in  our  view, 
against  the  ^^ truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus;"  and 
against  the  character,  the  peace,  and  the  hope 
of  thousands  of  his  most  exemplary  followers. 

Our  remarks  on  this  subject.  Dr.  Hobart  re- 
sents as  unfounded,  injurious,  and  even  cruel. 
We  quote  his  sixth  letter. 

"Your  other  charges,"  viz.  besides  that  of  aggression,  "may- 
be thus  summed  up: 

"  That  I  maintain,  that  communion  with  the  Episcopal 
priesthood  is  a  condition  of  salvation  which  is  not  only  indispen- 
sable on  the  part  of  wan,  (in  which  sense  I  apply  the  word  indis- 
pensable,) but  which  God  himself  will  not  dispense  with  ;  and 
that  '  the  simple  fact  of  separation  from  the  Episcopal  priest- 
hood' renders  all  repentance  and  faith  unavailing,  '  mars  the 
religion  of  non-Episcopalians,  and  renders  it  stark  naught !' — 
and  that  thus  I  make  the  "  only  alternative,  Episcopacy  or  Per- 
dition !  !'* 

*  Christian's  Magazine^  P-  94,  95. 


Hohart's  Apology.  28  9 

"  That  I  '  make  particular  views  of  external  order,  the  hing- 
ing point  of  salvation'* — that  I  '  place  the  external  order  of  the 
Church,  upon  a  level  with  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  in  the 
article  ot  acceptance  before  God  ;'t — that,  with  respect  to  non- 
Episcopalians,  I  make  Episcopacy  of  primary^  and  faith  in  the 
Redeemer  of  secondary  importance  5't — and  that  I  maintain  that 
'  faith  in  Christ  is  impossible  where  there  is  no  communion  with 
the  Bishop.'t 

"  ]\ow,  sir,  before  you  can  be  'justified  in  uttering  a  syllable 
which  only  looks  towards  conclusions,'  which  hold  me  up  as  a 
monster  of  arrogance  and  impiety,  unfit  to  be  tolerated  among 
Christians,  you  ought  to  be  not  only  'perfectly  certain  of  your 
premises,'  but  that  your  conclusions  also  are  fairly  and  legiti- 
mately drawn. 

"  I  utterly  disclaim  the  sentiments  you  impute  to  me. 

"I  utterly  desy  the  truth  of  your  charges. 

"  I  pledge  myself  to  prove  that  you  support  them  by  partial 
Q.nd  false  views  of  my  opinions — by  uncandidly  toTtm^ing  them 
to  3,n  extreme — and  by  illogical  deductions  which  a^z^s^reasoner 
should  blush  to  make,  and  a  candid  reasoner  should  scorn  to 
enlist  into  his  service. 

"1  pledge  myself  to  prove  that  the  same  uncandid  methods 
would  attach  the  same  odium  to  your  own  principles  5  and  that  I 
lay  no  greater  stress  on  external  order,  on  communion  with  the 
church  through  its  ministry  and  ordinances,  than  the  standards 
and  confessions  of  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  churches  will  war- 
rant." 

We  have  examined,  and  re-examined  our  of- 
fensive review  :  We  luivc  "  accompanied"  our 
angry  correspondent  "  through  the  pages  of  our 
Magazine  ;"  and  after  listening  attentively  to 
his  remonstrances,  cannot  perceive  that  he  has 
convicted  us  of  any  material  inaccuracy.  But, 
seeing  that  he  explicitly  disclaims  the  opinions 
imputed  to  him,  we  as  explicitly  acquit  himper- 

*  Christian's  Magazine,  p.  98.  t  Ibid.  p.  99. 

31-^ 


290  Review. 

sonallj/j  from  the  imputation :  and  we  do  no 
more  than  we  had  virtually  done  already.  In 
expressing  his  charity  for  non-Episcopalians,  he 
had,  in  effect,  renounced  the  consequences  which 
we  deduced  from  his  doctrines.  This  no  extra- 
ordinary penetration  was  needful  to  discover. 
Our  dehate,  therefore,  from  the  heginning,  was 
not  w^ith  the  man,  hut  with  the  iDrite7\  We  are 
not  sure  that  Dr.  H.  will  thank  us  for  the  dis- 
tinction :  as,  by  supposing  that  he  may  be  a  very 
good  man,  and  yet  a  very  bad  logician,  it  saves 
his  philanthropy  at  the  expense  of  his  discern- 
ment. But  our  concessions  can  go  no  further. 
For  he  has  neither  invalidated  our  reasonings, 
nor  supported  his  own  doctrine  with  additional 
proof 

Dr.  H.'s  defence  against  the  charges  under 
consideration,  resolves  itself  into  two  parts ;  the 
one  is  an  attempt  to  show  that 

"  The  same  uncandid  and  unfair  arts,^''  viz.  as  those  employed 
by  the  C.  M.  "would  involve  many  of  our  principles  in  odium, 
and  fix  on  us  consequences  of  our  opinions,  which  we  will  doubt- 
less abhor  and  disclaim."* — "Let  us  suppose,"  says  the  Apologist, 
"  some  ingenious  sophist  resolves  to  dispute  Dr.  Mason's  preten- 
sions to  superiority  in  the  arts  of  plausible  but  false  deduction,  of 
blackening  opinions  that  they  may  be  '  urged  over  the  precipice.' 
He  opens  the  Christian's  Magazine,  and  thus  breaks  a  lance  with 
its  giant  editor."t 

Dr.  H.  then  goes  on  to  show  how  an  ingenious 
sophist  would  acquit  himself  ''  in  the  arts  of 
plausible  but  false  deduction."     The  sophistry 

*  Apology,  p.  69.  t  lb. 


Hobarfs  Apology.  291 

is  palpable  enough  ;  the  ingenuity  is  not  quite 
so  clear.  But  it  appears  to  us  to  be  fully  as 
sound  and  conclusive  as  any  other  reasoning  in 
that  part  of  the  "  Apology"  which  we  are  now 
reviewing.  The  question,  which  Dr.  H.  after  all 
his  lucubrations,  has  left  pretty  nearly  where 
he  found  it,  still  recurs.  Whether  his  claims  on 
behalf  of  the  Episcopal  church,  do  or  do  not 
justify  our  construction  7  Dr.  H.  replies,  No  ! 
And  his  attempt  to  establish  the  negative,  con- 
stitutes the  o^At^r  part  of  his  defence.  This,  to  our 
apprehension,  contains  little  more  than  assertions 
and  explanations  of  his  "  charity,"  repeated,  and 
repeated,  and  repeated,  till  the  point  to  be  set- 
tled is  lost  in  the  multitude  and  the  glitter  of 
words  ;  or  else  in  disowning  a  consequence,  he 
repudiates  a  principle ;  and  in  again  espousing 
the  principle,  invites  the  consequence  :  thus 
giving  in  one  breath,  and  taking  back  in  the 
next  :  and  in  this  alternation  of  giving  and 
taking,  exhibiting  a  most  curious  struggle 
between  his  charity  and  his  logic. 

If,  however,  it  is  true,  that  we  have  so  grossly 
mistaken  and  misrepresented  the  principles  of 
Dr.  H.  and  his  friends,  and  their  predecessors, 
as  he  pretends,  we  have  the  consolation  of  erring 
in  company  which  he  will  not  deny  to  be  respec- 
table. The  first  of  our  fellow-trespassers  is  no 
less  a  personage  than  Archbishop  Wake^  under 
whose  wing  Dr.  H.  is  proud  to  cower.  Before 
and  during  the  time  of  this  learned  and  amiable 


292  JRemcic. 

prelate,  a  number  of  Episcopal  writers  advanced 
the  very  same  claims  which  have  recently  been 
revived  by  Daubeny,  Hobart,  &c.  And  he  did 
not  scruple  to  tell  them  that  they  "  were  out  of 
their  senses."  ''  God  forbid,"  says  he,  in  a  letter 
to  the  famous  Le  Clerc,  "  God  forbid  that  I 
should  be  so  iron-hearted,  as  on  account  of  such 
a  defect,"  viz.  the  want  of  Episcopal  order,  "  to 
believe  that  some  of  them,"  the  foreign  Protest- 
ant churches,  "  should  be  cut  off  from  our  com- 
munion ;  or  with  certain  insane  writers  among 
us,  to  pronounce  that  they  have  no  true  and 
valid  sacraments;  and  so  are  hardly  C/iristlans.^'* 
The  archbishop,  it  seems,  construed  these 
exclusive  claims  as  we  have  done  ;  and  he  has 
called  their  advocates  by  much  harsher  nam.es 
than  we  choose  to  adopt.  Pray  was  this 
"eminent  and  revered  Bishop,"  as  Dr.  H.  terms 
him,  "  uncandid  and  unfair  1"  Was  he^  too, 
an  "  ingenious  sophist,"  versed  in  the  "  arts  of 
plausible  but  false  deduction  7"  Did  Ac,  too, 
pursue  "  an  unrelenting  system  of  intemperate 
denunciation?"^^  Surely  it  was  rather  mal-a- 
propos  to  break  the  head  of  his  grace  of  Canter- 
bury with  a  stroke  aimed  at  a  poor  Presbyterian ! 

*  Interim  absit  ut  ego  tarn  ferrei  peci.oj-is  sim,  ut  ob  ejus  modi 
defectum  (sic  mihi  absque  omni  invidia  appellai'e  liceat)  aliquas  earum 
a  communione  nostra  abscindendas  credam  ;  aut  cum  quibusdam 
furiosis  inter  nos  scriptoribus,  eas  nulla  vera  ac  valida  sacramenta 
habere,  adeoque  vix  Christianos  esse  pronuntiem.  Letter  to  Le  Clerc^ 
£pril,  1719.  Apj)en.  to  Mosbeim's  History,  vol  .6.  App.  III.  No.  xxi. 
p.  124. 

t  Apology,  p.  18. 


Hoharfs  Apology.  293 

We  have  taken  this  retrospect  merely  to  show 
the  continuity  of  the  exclusive  system  of  Dr.  H. 
and  his  friends,  and  the  light  in  which  it  has 
been  viewed  by  great  men  in  his  own  church. 
To  prove  that  the  very  same  consequences  are, 
at  this  moment,  drawn  from  it  by  high  church- 
men themselves,  we  select  the  following  instance 
out  of  several  which  we  have  before  us,  and  well 
authenticated. 

In  the  fall  of  1806,  a  young  gentleman,  ex- 
tremely attached  to  the  Episcopal  church,  and 
an  advocate  for  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regen- 
eration, was  led,  by  mere  curiosity,  to  a  weekly 
evening  lecture  in  one  of  the  neighbouring  non- 
Episcopal  churches.  The  subject,  which  was 
our  Lord's  conversation  with  Nicodemus  on  the 
new  birth,  arrested  his  attention,  and  the  argu- 
ment went  home  to  his  heart.  He  became  con- 
vinced that  he  had  been  in  fatal  error  as  to  the 
ground  of  his  eternal  hope  ;  an  entire  revolution 
was  wrought  in  his  sentiments  and  character  ; 
and,  at  length,  under  more  sound  and  evangelical 
views,  he  applied  to  the  minister  whose  labours 
had  been  blessed  to  him,  for  admission  to  the 
Lord's  table.  After  giving  a  satisfactory  account 
of  his  Christianity,  he  was  desired  to  ask  from 
his  Episcopal  pastor  a  certificate  of  dismission: 
his  friend  at  the  same  time  remarked,  "Although 
he  does  not  acknov>iedge  me  to  be  a  lawful 
minister  of  the  Gospel,  yet  I  deem  it  proper  to 
day  him  this  compliment."    The  certificate  was 


294  Review. 

asked  ;  but,  instead  of  giving  it,  tlie  Episcopal 
clergyman  broke  out  into  an  invective  against 
the  youth  ;  told  him  "  he  deserved  to  be  excom- 
municated— that  he  was  leaving  the  way  of  sal- 
vation— that  Jesus  Christ  would  reject  him  at 
the  great  day — and  that  he,"  the  clergyman, 
"  would  be  witness  against  him  !  ! " 

The  reader  may  rely  upon  the  fact.  We  have 
place,  names,  and  authority  to  give,  should  it  be 
denied.  The  clergyman  is  well  known  ;  and  has 
distinguished  himself  as  an  advocate  of  ''  the 
church  ;"  and,  with  all  deference  to  Dr.  H.  his 
construction  of  her  claims  appears  to  us  to  be 
not  unlike  ^'  Episcopacy  or  perdition !" 

But  to  cut  this  whole  matter  short — God  has 
either  promised  eternal  life  to  non-Episcopalians 
who  believe  in  Christ,  or  he  has  not.  If  he  has, 
they  have  a  complete  claim  upon  covenant  mercy 
— If  he  has  not,  it  is  the  height  of  presumption 
in  the  Episcopalians  to  promise  for  him  ;  and 
the  height  of  folly  in  the  others  to  believe  them. 
To  tell  us  that  when  they  "  maintain  that 
communion  with  the  Episcopal  priesthood  is  an 
indispensable  condition  of  salvation,"  they  only 
mean  "  indispensable  on  the  part  of  7?ian,"  is  a 
most  singular  explanation.  Do  they  really 
imagine,  that  the  world  is  in  danger  of  ascribing 
to  them  a  right  to  alter  the  conditions  of  salva- 
tion 7  After  all  their  explanations,  the  question 
recurs,  ivhether  God  ivill  dispense  with  this  their 
darling  condition^  or  not  ?     If  not,  then  again, 


HoharVs  Apology.  295 

our  alternative  is  "  Episcopacy  or  perdition." 
If  he  will,  and  if  he  does  ;  if,  notwithstanding 
our  refusal  to  acknowledge  the  prelates,  we  may 
be  accepted  in  his  dear  Son,  may  live  in  the 
light  of  his  countenance,  and  die  in  the  joy  of 
his  salvation,  it  is  enough  for  us.  We  shall 
give  ourselves  very  little  trouble  about  a  dispen- 
sation from  the  Episcopal  priesthood  !  They 
need  not  be  uneasy  :  we  are  far  enough  from 
supposing  that  ^/le?/ have  any  power  of  dispensing 
w^ith  God's  appointments.  But  to  proclaim  com- 
munion with  them  an  indispensable  condition 
of  salvation  ;  and  then  not  only  to  concede  that 
God  is  dispensing \y\\h  this  condition  every  hour; 
but  that  they  should  be  "  monsters  of  arrogance 
and  impiety,"  to  doubt  it,  is  w^orse  than  trifling. 
For,  in  order  to  support  a  favourite  hypothesis,  it 
engenders  a  false  and  pernicious  notion  of  the 
HOLY  ONE  of  Israel,  as  perpetually  departing 
from  his  own  plan,  reversing  his  own  law,  con- 
tradicting his  own  revelation ;  whereas  he  is, 
for  he  has  himself  said  it,  the  father  of  lights^ 
icith  ichoni  is  no  variableness  neither  shadow 

OF    TURNING.^ 

It  is  now  time  to  have  done  with  this  Apology. 
Were  we  to  expose  all  its  sophisms,  perversions, 
mistakes,  and  puerilities,  we  should  weary  our- 
selves without  profiting  the  reader.  We  are 
perfectly  content  that  our  argument  for  minis- 
terial equality,  which  Dr.  H.  has  undertaken  to 

*  .Tames  i.  17. 


296  Remew. 

answer,  shall  stand  before  any  competent 
tribunal,  and  speak  for  itself,  against  all  liis 
accusations,  witliout  the  aid  of  counsel.  We 
shall,  therefore,  take  our  leave  of  him,  after 
presenting  the  reader  with  a  pretty  strong 
example  of  his  correctness  in  his  facts. 

"  When  the  Secession  took  place  in  Scotland,  the  Seceders 
were  solemnly  excommunicated  by  the  Estabhshed  Church;  and 
when  the  Seceders  split  into  the  two  sects  oi'  Burghers,  and  Anti- 
Burghers,  they  excommunicated  each  other.  In  like  manner, 
when,  in  this  country,  some  of  the  m.inisters  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery,  consisting  chiefly  of  Anti-Burghers,  seceded  from 
that  Presbytery,  and,  in  conjunction  with  some  of  the  Ministers 
of  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  formed  a  new  church  under  the 
denomination  of  the  Associate-Beformed  Church,  (of  which  you 
are  a  minister.)  sentences  of  excommunication  were  formally 
passed."! 

Dr.  H.'s  first  assertion  is,  that 

"  The  Seceders  were  solemnly  excommunicated  by  the  estab- 
lished Church." 

This  is  not  true — tlie  secedins:  ministers,  to 
the  number  of  eight,  were,  in  1740,  deposed  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  church  of  Scotland. 
No  excommunication  took  place,  even  o{  tliem  ; 
far  less  of  "  the  seceders,"  who  were  a  large 
body  of  people  ;  and  this  censure  was  not 
inflicted  till  seven  years  after  the  secession  had 
commenced. 
.  Dr.  H.'s  second  assertion  is,  that, 

"  When  the  Seceders  split  into  the  two  sects  o^  Burghers  and 
Anti-Burghers,  they  excommunicated  each  other." 

*  Apology,  \^.2\6,2\7. 


Hoharfs  Apology.  297 

This  is  not  true — The  Antiburghers  did,  in- 
deed, pronounce  a  sentence  of  excominunicalion 
upon  the  Burghers  ;  but  it  was  never  recipro- 
cated. 

Dr.  H.'s  third  assertion  is,  that, 

"  In  like  manner,  when,  in  this  country,  some  of  the  ministers 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery ,  consisting  chiefly  of  Anti-Burghers, 
seceded  from  that  Presbytery,  and  in  conjunction  with  some, 
ministers  of  the  Reformed  Presbytery,  formed  a  new  church, 
under  the  denomination  of  the  Associate-Reformed  Churchy 
sentences  of  excommunication  w^ere  formally  passed." 

Unless  the  writer  has  purposely  provided  for 
tergiversation,  the  only  meaning  which  can  be 
put  upon  this  paragraph  is,  that  the  two  bodies 
alluded  to,  mutually  excommunicated  each 
other.  This  is  mere  fiction  ;  no  such  excom- 
munications ever  existed. 

Here,  now,  are  three  sentences  together,- 
containing  the  same  number  of  gross  errors  in 
matters  of  fact ;  of  fact,  comparatively  recent; 
and  of  which,  authentic  accounts  are  within 
every  one's  reach — Three  sentences  ;  and  an 
error  a-piece  !  Not  much  amiss  for  a  contro- 
vertist  who  has  "  learning  enough  to  defend  the 
Episcopal  church  !  "  And  a  very  comfortable 
pledge  of  the  security  with  which  his  readers 
may  repose  upon  his  representations  ! 


INDEX. 


A. 

page 
Act  of  Uniformity  in  Eng- 
land   91 

Angel  ....  138 
Angel  of  the  Church  .  .  148 
Apocalypse,  Symbols  of  .  147 
Apostles  and  Evangelists     .     92 

and  Presbyters   ,       117 

,  Commission  of       .     95 

,  Double  capacity  of  119 

Apostolic  Testimony  .  217 
Assembly  at  Jerusalem  ,  130 
Augustine  .  .  .  254 
Authority  of  Presbyters  .  108 
Ayton's  Christian  Church       175 

B. 

Baptism   of  the    Prelate   of 

New-York  ...  23 
Bellarmine  .  .  .225 
Beveridge,  Comment  of  .368 
Bingham  .  .  .  .  174 
Bishops  and  Presbyters         .     37 


Candlesticks  of  John  .  .  145 
Change  of  Names  .  .  63 
Character  of  James       .         .  122 

of  Timothy       .       153 

of  Titus        .         .  153 

Charles  I.  ...         91 

Chrysostom  ....  155 
Church  at  Smyrna    .  .       149 

Government     .         .     29 

in   our   Lord's   time     86 

Claims  of  the  Episcopalians  16 
Commission  of  the  Seventy     95 

of  Timothy       .  196 

of  Titus         .       196 


page 
Communion  denied  to  non- 
Episcopalians   .         .         .34 
Companion  for  the  Altar  .         16 

for  the  Fasts  and 

Festivals     .         ,         .         .29 

D. 

Daille,  Testimony  of  .  .  173 
Daubeny  on  Prelacy  .  31 
Deacons  .  .  .  .41 
Ata  .  .  .  .  .  158 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  not  sus- 
tained by  Scripture  .  .  39 
Distinction  of  terms  .  .  46 
Dodwell        .         .         .  .176 

E. 

HFEOMAI        .        .  .108 

Elders       ....  59 

Elevation    of  Presbyters,  a 

human  contrivance  .  .  233 
Episcopacy  determined  .  39 
from  the  custom 

of  the  Church  .         .  .  261 

or  perdition    .  27 

Episcopal  arguments    .  .  190 

fiction        .         .  73 

priesthood    .  ,     80 

Episcopalian  proscription  .     25 
Epistles      to      the      Seven 

Churches  of  Asia     .  .  133 

Eucharistic  Sacrifice         .  98 

Eusebius       .         .         .  .201 

Evangelists     .         .         .  200 


Facts    of  the   New    Testa- 
ment        ....  104 
Feasts  and  Festivals        .        29 


300 


Index. 


page 
Five-mile  Act       .         .         .91 
Form    of   Church     govern- 
ment        .         .         .         .29 
Fulke,  Evidence  of  .         .       141 

G. 

Government  .         .         .  114 
of  the  Church    .     29 


Ordination  by  Titus 
Origin  of  the  work 


page 

170 

15 


H. 

Hammond  on  Elders    . 


Levitical  Priesthood 

M. 

Matthias 

Mede,  Testimony  of 


59 


Hands,  imposition  of  .  165 
Hesychius  .  .  .  .123 
Hoadley    .         .         .         .204 


Identity  of  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters       ....     39 
Imposition  of  hands  .         .       165 

J. 

James,  not  a  prelate     .         .129 

,  official  character  of    122 

Jerome,  Epistle  of,  to  Eva- 
grius  ....  229 

,  Testimony  of       .       225 

Jewish  Priesthood  .  .  67 
John,  Revelation  by  .  106 
John  the  Baptist  .         .         .87 


.     80 


.  101 
141 

Mira 158 

Methodists        ...         36 
Ministry  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment .         .         .         .78 

,    parallel  of  the     .         75 

Moore,  statement  of    .         .  140 

N. 
Names,  use  of  .  .  .44 
Nature  of  the  Succession  .  89 
N(o(j>no)rq  .  .  .  .192 
New  Testament,  Facts  of  .  104 
New  Testament,  Ministry  of    78 

O. 

Official  character  of  James  .  122 
Orders  of  Priesthood  .         86 

Ordination  by  Timothy         .  169 


Parallelisms 
Parallel  of  the  Ministry 
Pearson,  Statement  of . 
Pelagius    . 
Perdition  or  Prelacy     . 
nOJMAINJl  . 
Potter    on     Church-govern- 
ment .         .         .         , 
Power  of  government 
Prelacy  mischievous     . 

or  perdition  . 

Prelates    unknown    in    the 


190 
75 

209 

259 
27 

110 

122 

108 

207 
27 

105 

102 

47 

110 

108 

160 

87 

80 

86 

109 

109 

25 


Apostolic  Churches  . 
Preparative  ministry 
Presbyter 
Presbyters 

,  Authority  of 

Presbytery 
Priesthood,  Jewish 

,  Levitical 

,  Orders  of  . 

J1P0J2TAMAI     . 
nP0J2THMI 
Proscription  by  Prelatists 

R. 

Revelation,  by  John     .         .  106 
Rodgers,    John,    of     New- 
York          .         .         .         .132 
Rulers     ....         109 


Saciifice  of  the  Eucharist  .  98 
Salazar,  Exposition  of  .  161 
Sermon,  by  Wright  .  .  23 
Seven  Churches,  Epistles  to  133 
Seventy,  Commission  of  .  93 
Shepherds  .  •  .111 

Smyrna,  Church  of       .  .  149 

"Star"      .         .  .         .138 

Stillingfleet  .  .  •  142,  177 
Succession  of  the  Priesthood  89 
Symbols  of  the  Apocalypse  .  141 


Terms  designate  Officers  .  58 
Testimony'  of  the  Apostles  .  217 
Theodoret  .  .  .  .57 
Theophylact  .  .  .155 
Timothy,  Character  of  .  153 
Titus,  Ordination  of  •       .       169 


Index. 


301 


Titus,  Character  of 

,  Commission  of 

,  Ordination  by 

Tradition  .... 
Triple  order  of  Priesthood 
Twelve,  and  Seventy 
Typical  functions 
officers 


11 

196 
170 
243 

87 
93 

81 
.81 

U. 
Uniformity,  Act  of 
Use  of  Names  . 
Usher,  Testimony  of   . 

Page 

.     91 

44 

.  225 

W. 

Whitaker     . 
Willet       . 
Wright,  Sermon  by 

.  179 

177 

.     23 

THE    END. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01016  9987 


Cv}'r-5'-rar^^^^ 


